anglesea neighbourhood character study · 2018. 1. 31. · neighbourhood character study provides...

Anglesea NeighbourhoodAnglesea Neighbourhood Character StudyCharacter Study

Anglesea NeighbourhoodAnglesea NeighbourhoodAnglesea Neighbourhood Character StudyCharacter StudyCharacter Study

2003

Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study__________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________1

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 2

2. Background 4

3. Methodology 6

4. Assessment of Key Character Elements 8

5. Vegetation Assessment 21

6. Current Planning Controls 26

7. Review of Planning Controls 29

8. Other Issues 35

9. Recommendations 36

Appendices1. “A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character in Anglesea” (Dr Ray Green,

2002)

2. “Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study - Vegetation Report” (Mark Trengove, January2003)

3. Indigenous Planting Guide (Surf Coast Shire, 2003)

4. Data collected from Physical Survey (Surf Coast Shire, 2003)

5. Precinct Descriptions

6. Case Studies of Existing Developments

7. Proposed Overlay Controls & Subdivision Policy

Maps1. Aerial photo of Anglesea

2. Location of Precincts (street layout)

3. Location of Precincts (aerial photo)

4. Public Landscape Vistas

5. Distribution of sealed/gravel roads

6. Vegetation Assessment – mapped by EVC

7. Vegetation Assessment – mapped by location of sites

8. Existing Zones

9. Existing Overlays

10. Proposed Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 3 (SLO3)

11. Proposed Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 3 (ESO3)

12. Proposed Restructure Overlay – Schedule 1 (RO1)

13. Proposed Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 9 (DDO9)

CopyrightSome cover photographs are Copyright © by Dr. Ray Green, Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, TheUniversity of Melbourne, and have been taken from his report "A Study of Resident Perceptions of NeighbourhoodCharacter in Anglesea" (2002).

Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study_______________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________2

1. Executive Summary

This Study has established that Anglesea has a low density vegetated character, reflective of its pasthistory as a small coastal settlement and its setting in an environmentally sensitive part of the coast.

The dominance of vegetation over the built environment and informal relationship between private andpublic realms contribute highly to this character. Key factors influencing this are:

• Low density of built development, with vegetation around buildings often screening them fromthe street and adjoining properties.

• Lack of front and solid side boundary fencing, and lack of definition between boundaries ofpublic and private land.

• A number of unmade gravel roads with informal kerbs and vegetated roadsides.

• Low profile building height, with houses generally not exceeding two storeys and within the treecanopy.

• Close proximity of most residential land to nature reserves or crown land which have highenvironmental and aesthetic value.

A study of community perceptions by Dr Ray Green found that views of natural features such as theocean, coastline and areas of indigenous bush and heathland are most highly contributory to thecharacter of Anglesea. Buildings considered incompatible with the town’s character were found toexhibit the following attributes:

• Too large in scale.

• Too ‘boxy’ in appearance.

• Lacking sufficient surface and massing articulation.

• Brick construction and of a ‘suburban appearance’.

• Painted in strong, dark or garish colours.

• Lacking surrounding vegetation, or having manicured lawns and garden as opposed tonative/indigenous trees and understorey.

Athough there are physical attributes that combine to define different precincts within the town, manycharacter elements are common across all parts of the town, with the quality and extent of vegetationcover being the most significant varying factor. Planning controls should seek to preserve andenhance the preferred character elements on a town wide basis, particularly in relation to vegetationcover. Precinct based development controls are not supported except in relation to differentsubdivision lot sizes and development density provisions that reflect the difference in lot sizes betweenthe eastern and western parts of the town.

The Planning Scheme provisions have been reviewed taking into account the findings of the Study,with the following key recommendations:

� Retention of the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) as the best tool to preserve thelandscape character of the town, albeit that it should be modified to incorporate changesrecommended by the Study.

� Application of an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) to areas of Moonah vegetation,particularly in Point Roadknight.

� Application of a Restructure Overlay (RO) to two old subdivisions in Point Roadknight whichcontain lots that are significantly smaller than the prevailing size of properties in the area.

� Increased minimum subdivision lot size and lower development density from 450m² to 550m²,and 600m² for corner lots on the eastern side of Anglesea (retention of the current 800m² in thewestern part of Anglesea), and potential for an increased development density on land in thecentral part of Anglesea dependant on restrictions to building floorarea.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________3

� Reduced ground level footprint of buildings and hard surfaces (ie site coverage) based on asliding scale according to the allotment size.

� Reduced building size (ie plot ratio) on a sliding scale according to the allotment size.� Limitation of side boundary fencing in most cases to timber post and wire, and use of vegetation

to achieve privacy.� Support for use of ‘Surf Coast Style’ principles to discourage suburban forms of development

and bulky buildings with unarticulated blank walls.� Application of a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) to the Anglesea shopping centre to

implement design guidelines in the Anglesea Streetscape Project 1996.

Other recommendations outside of the planning system include that:� The informal appearance of road surfaces, drainage and footpaths in public streets and new

subdivisions be maintained.� Priority be given to proactive enforcement of planning provisions.� Priority be given to to education of both existing and new residents of the environmental values

of the area, environmental weeds, and preferred indigenous planting (ie Planting Guide).� Consideration be given to prohibiting the planting of environmental weeds by way of a local law.

The Municipal Strategic Statement of the Planning Scheme and Victorian Coastal Strategy both statethat future residential development on the coast should be focussed in growth centres such asTorquay in order to preserve the low density character of the smaller settlements and to reflect theenvironmental sensitivities of those towns. The outcomes of this Study will implement this strategicdirection and strengthen the capacity of planning controls to more appropriately guide development inAnglesea.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________4

2. BackgroundWhat is Neighbourhood Character?

Neighbourhood character is described in the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) Practice Note asbeing:

“Neighbourhood character is essentially the combination of the public and private realms. Everyproperty, public place or piece of infrastructure makes a contribution. It is the cumulative impactof all these contributions that establishes neighbourhood character. The key to understandingcharacter is being able to describe how the features of an area come together to give that area itsown particular character.”

In the Surf Coast Shire, neighbourhood character is derived from more than just the built form with itsnatural, demographic and social characteristics being important in terms of shaping its character.

Why a Neighbourhood Character Study in Anglesea?

As a seaside town, Anglesea caters for asummer influx of holiday home owners andcampers, but due to its close proximity toGeelong and Melbourne, is an increasinglyattractive destination for both day trippers andnon-permanent residents. This trend isacknowledged in the Victorian Coastal Strategy(Victorian Coastal Council, 2002) whichidentifies that towns like Anglesea are underpressure to increase housing densities due todemographic change (P13), and that this isreflected in the rapid growth of property prices incoastal towns compared to non-coastallocations.

There have been negative perceptions from some parts of the community about the impact ofincreased development on the unique coastal character of Anglesea. In particular concern has beenexpressed in relation to subdivision of land for medium density development, loss of vegetation cover,and the replacement of small holiday homes with more dominant, bulkier houses.

The Victorian Coastal Strategy provides an important context for consideration of neighbourhoodcharacter in Anglesea, containing a vision that:

“Coastal villages will retain their seaside and village character”

and that:

“Townships will no longer grow like ‘topsy turvy’. They will be recognisably coastal in characterand grow within planning frameworks which respect the environments within which they’re built”(P6).

An objective is stated in the Strategy as being:

“To ensure that any future built form is sensitively located, ecologically sound and respectsvisually sensitive landscapes so that loss of habitat, loss of amenity and potential erosion isminimised” (P38).

Copyright © by Dr. Ray Green 2002


_________________________________________________________________________________________________5

The Strategy encourages local government to ensure that Municipal Strategic Statements (MSS) takeaccount of the special nature and character of coastal towns, and protect their character throughmechanisms such as local guidelines and planning scheme overlays.

Unlike other coastal settlements such as Torquay, Anglesea has natural barriers to outwardsexpansion due to abutting crown land on three sides and the ocean to the south-east, and hasretained an extensive native tree canopy. A 2001 Study into residential land supply titled “Review ofResidential Land Supply and Population Growth in Anglesea” (Hansen Partnership) confirmed thatcurrent town boundaries will not be expanded in the foreseeable future due to the environmentalsignificance of land surrounding the town, which limits future population growth to existing residentialzoned areas within Anglesea.

The purpose of this study is to determine how best to manage change so that valued aspects ofAnglesea’s character are protected and enhanced, and undervalued or de-valued areas are modifiedand improved. The Council introduced a suite of new controls in Anglesea with the new VPP formatPlanning Scheme in October 2000, covering aspects of development not previously addressed by theScheme such as fencing and vegetation removal. Other policies concerning development density, sitecoverage and external building colours were revised and included in the Planning Scheme. TheNeighbourhood Character Study provides an opportunity to review these controls after 2-3 years ofoperation.

Objectives

The objectives of the study are to:• Maintain and enhance the distinctive coastal character and features of the Anglesea township.• Facilitate the provision of a diversity of housing to meet the needs of a variety of household

types including both permanent and non-permanent residents.• Provide greater certainty for the community and the development industry in terms of what type

of development, and development attributes, may be compatible with the character of the town.• Establish a systematic methodology for the ongoing monitoring of planning decisions and review

of planning controls to achieve the above objectives.

Specifically, the Study involves the:• Identification and assessment of neighbourhood character within the township.• Preparation of precinct descriptions.• Mapping of vegetation types and significance across the town.• Preparation of a list of indigenous plants suitable for Anglesea (ie Planting Guide).• Review of development controls in the Surf Coast Planning Scheme as they relate to the

outputs of the Study.• Recommendation of measures for implementation

The Study relates to the area within the township boundaries as defined in the ‘Framework Plan’ of theAnglesea Strategy in the Surf Coast Planning Scheme. It focuses on residential zoned land and doesnot specifically include commercial areas. Refer to Map 1 for an aerial view of the town and keyfeatures referred to in this report.

15/7/2003

25 GROSSMANS ROADPO BOX 350TORQUAY, VICTORIAAUSTRALIA 3228PHONE : +61 3 5261 0600FAX : +61 3 5261 4527INTERNET : www.surfcoast.vic.gov.auEMAIL : [email protected]

'The Place of Wellbeing'The Surf Coast Shire Council and its employeesdo not guarantee that this product is not withoutflaws or inaccuracies and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or consequences whichmay arise from the dependence of this product.

ELLIMATTA RESERVE

EUMERALLA

SCOUT CAMP

INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

EDNA BOWMAN RESERVE

MAIN BEACH

FORESHORE CARAVAN PARK

DIGGERS

PARADE

CIVIC PRECINCT

'FOUR KINGS'

LOOKOUT RESERVE

POINT ROADKNIGHT

NARAMBI CARVAN PARK

LUTHERAN CAMP

ANGLESEA PS

COMMERCIAL CENTRE

ANGLESEA RIVER

KUARKA DORLA

RESERVE

COOGOORAH PARK

ALOCOA LEASE AREA

ANGLESEA HEATHLAND

ESTATE

DRIFTWOOD CARAVAN

PARK

GOLF CLUB

CAMP WILKIN

Scale 1:15,000

500 0 500 m

Anglesea NeighbourhoodCharacter Precincts


_________________________________________________________________________________________________6

3. MethodologyNeighbourhood character studies have traditionally been undertaken by professionals through datacollection and analysis. The approach taken in this Study differs in that as well as conducting aphysical analysis of character elements, it taps into the community’s perception of theirneighbourhood. The following is a brief description of the process followed in the Study.

Community Reference Group

A newsletter explaining the Study was sent to landowners at the outset, inviting them to participate ona Community Reference Group (CRG) which would have the dual purpose of providing feedback tothe Shire on different tasks being undertaken as part of the Study, as well as feeding information toand educating the wider community on the project. Following receipt of nominations, Councilappointed twelve community representatives. The Reference Group met three times during the Studyand their feedback has been incorporated into this report.

Community Perceptions Analysis

Dr. Ray Green, Head of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning,University of Melbourne, was engaged to undertake a study of community perceptions ofneighbourhood character based on his research into town character in other nearby coastal townsLorne and Apollo Bay, using a perceptually based town character assessment methodology he hasdeveloped through past reseach.

The methodology and results of this component of the Study are summarised in a report by Dr. Greentitled “A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character in Anglesea (November 2002)”which is appended as Appendix 1. The key outcomes are discussed in Chapter 4. This Study, as wellas contributions from the Reference Group, has informed the Study as to elements of “preferredcharacter” that planning controls should seek to achieve.

Vegetation Assessment

Mark Trengove of Geelong Indigenous Nurseries was engaged to:� Identify and classify vegetation communities within the town;

� Identify the conservation significance of the vegetation communities and any significant plantspecies; and

� Make recommendations on the protection of significant vegetation communities or particularspecies.

A report by Mr Trengove titled: “Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study: Vegetation Report” (2003)outlines the methodology and results of the work and is appended as Appendix 2. The results arediscussed in Chapters 5 and 7.

Indigenous Plant List

Surf Coast Shire officers have produced a list of plant species that are indigenous to Anglesea for thepurpose of assisting land owners to select plant species which are complimentary to the indigenousenvironment.

A draft copy of the plant list was circulated to the local community group ANGAIR, which hadsubstantial input into the selection of species based on local knowledge of the flora in the area. Acopy of the Plant List is appended at Appendix 3.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________7

Precinct Description and Analysis

Shire Officers have undertaken the task of identifying from physical survey the existing characteristicsof the built form and natural features within the town. Each street within the town has been surveyedand the data recorded in a spread sheet. Details of the features surveyed and collected data areappended as Appendix 4. The data has been analysed to determine areas where thesecharacteristics are common and/or vary from one another. The results of this analysis are shown onMaps 2 and 3, with detailed Precinct Descriptions appended as Appendix 5.

Study Report

The Study report draws together the work undertaken by Shire officers and consultants MarkTrengove and Dr. Ray Green. The following chapters analyse the key features that have beenidentified as being important to the character of Anglesea

In Chapter 7, development controls in the Planning Scheme are reviewed taking into account thepreferred character outcomes identified, assisted by a detailed examination of case studydevelopments. Developments chosen as case studies were drawn from those rated as beingincompatible with character at the community workshop held as part of the perception analysisexercise, as well as other developments selected by Shire officers which exhibit similar characteristics.Case studies have given added capacity to make a link between current planning tools and thecharacter outcomes which result from them – refer Appendix 6.

Public Exhibition of the Draft Report

A draft Study report was widely exhibited in September and October 2003, with newspaperadvertisements, press releases and an article in the Shire’s quarterly newsletter ‘Groundswell’ that issent to land owners with the rates notice. A public workshop held within this period to explain theStudy findings and seek community feedback attracted 40 people. Eleven written submissions werereceived, of which four were opposed and seven were in support (some requesting changes). Keyissues raised by submitters include:

• Although there was support from some for limiting in-fill development to retain the vegetatedcharacter, other submitters were concerned that reduced opportunities for medium densityhousing and subdivision will limit Anglesea’s capacity to cater for long term population growth.

• Most submitters support the concept of open style fencing, however some were concerned thatsolid fencing is required to contain noise, domestic animals and provide privacy.

• There is agreement that gravel roads contribute to Anglesea’s character, however concern wasexpressed by some that they create problems of dust, maintenance and erosion.

• A few submitters expressed concerns about reductions in permitted building site coverage andoverall floor area on the basis that it may prevent sites from accommodating an average sizedhome, and lead to more visually dominant two storey housing. Others were supportive of thechanges.

• Some concern was raised that whilst bulky, unarticulated houses are discouraged, Councilofficers should not be making judgements about design, and that building colours are a matterof taste and should not be subject to approval.

• Although proposals to encourage indigenous planting are supported by many submitters, somepeople want the freedom to plant the garden of their own choosing.

The low formal community response to the Study indicates a broad level of support for its findings,with the main issue being changes to subdivision and medium density development provisions. TheStudy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 20 February, 2004 with minor changes, followingconsideration of all of the submissions, with refinement of the proposal to allow increaseddevelopment densities in the central part of Anglesea based on restrictions to building floor area.

25/7/2003'The Place of Wellbeing'

25 GROSSMANS ROADPO BOX 350TORQUAY, VICTORIAAUSTRALIA 3228PHONE : +61 3 5261 0600FAX : +61 3 5261 4527INTERNET : www.surfcoast.vic.gov.auEMAIL : [email protected] Surf Coast Shire Council and its employeesdo not guarantee that this product is not withoutflaws or inaccuracies and therefore disclaims allliability for any error, loss or consequences whichmay arise from the dependence of this product.

RO

AD

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

BETLEIGH

STREET

RO

AD

ELIZAB

ETHPATO

N

STREET

ELLIMATTA

MANNA GUM

CLO

SE

STR

EET

STREET

LITTLE

RAM

SAY

STR

EET

MC

DO

UG

ALL

STREET

ALLE

NS

TR

EE

T

STREET

ALMIRA

GREAT

OCEAN

STREET

INVE

RLOCHY

CR

T

SC

OT

TS

TR

EE

T

SIM

MO

NS

WEBB

STR

EET

STREET

STREET

STREET

RO

AD

WILKINS

RO

AD

STREET

CAM

P

PA

RA

DE

MURCH

CRESCENT

EVAN

S

PURNELL

RO

AD

HEDLEY S

TREET

STREET

VALDA STREET

STREET

STREET

MC RORIE

STREET

BR

EA

RLE

YC

OU

RT

LU

BE

L

AV

EN

UE

WRAY

RO

AD

WALKER

DO

NA

LD

ROAD

CAM

ER

ON

GREAT OCEAN

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

GROVE

CA

MP

BIN

GLE

Y

PA

RA

DE

KENNETH

CAM

P

ST

RE

ET

BETLEIGH

ELIZABETH

ROAD

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

STREET

TO

NG

E

STR

EE

T

GREAT

OCEAN

ROAD

STREET

RO

AD

RIV

ER

RESER

VE

DIG

GE

RS

CR

T

BIN

GLE

Y

HALLAM HE

AT

HE

R

BO

N A

IR

MURRAY

PARKER

MINIFIE

MA

WS

ON

AV

EN

UE

PA

RA

DE

STREET

AVENUE

ARINYA

GABBA

CR

T

CR

ES

CE

NT

FERNALD

NOBLE

HOLMWOOD

AVENUE

WA

Y

AV

E

GARDINER

ROAD

STR

EE

T

STREET

AVENUE

STR

EE

T

FIRST

STREET

MC CONNELL CLOSE

INGRAM

AVENUE

ROAD

CRESCENT

PARINGA

BU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CRESCENT

STREET

STR

EE

T

JAC

KS

ON

BA

KE

RS

TR

EE

T

MILNER

PE

TE

R

FOSTER

STREET

WA

LLIS

GREAT OCEAN

CRES

STR

EE

T

HARVEY

CRT

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

ME

LB

A

FORREST

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

ST

RE

ET

EDWARDSTREET

SP

AR

RO

W

AVENUE

BA

NN

ISTE

R

MC MILLAN

AV

EN

UE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

NOBL

E

MC MILLANS

TR

EE

TC

HA

RLE

S

STR

EE

TG

EO

RG

E

CRT

COURT

RUSSELL

CHATSWOOD

FRASER

BREN

TLAU

REN

STREE

T

ROAD

WEI

R

RO

AD

GO

LF L

INK

S

LEWIS

CARRAWE

CRT

COURT

STREET

MURRAY

STREET

GO

LF

LIN

KS

RO

AD

FR

AS

ER

AV

EN

UE

DRIVE

AVENUE

AVEN

UE

HILLCREST

FRASER

TW

ELF

TH

AV

EN

UEO

`DO

NO

HU

E

ROAD

AVENUE

EIG

HT

H

AVENUE

PARADE

AVENUE

STREET

O`D

ON

OH

UE

RO

AD

NOBLE

SECOND

HARVEY

TENTH

SEVEN

TH

AVENUE

MELBA

RO

AD

SIXTH

FOURTH

AVENUE

FIF

TH

BELTON

MC MAHON

STREET

ST

RE

ET

BIRKDALE

DR

IVE

AVENUE

FA

IRW

AY

CLOSE

FIF

TH

GREAT O

CEAN

ELEVENTH

NIBLICK

BE

LTO

N

BIRDIE

AVENUE

BO

GIE

CR

T

AVENUE

STREET

PA

R

STREET

STREET

HARVEY

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

COURT

DRIVE

EAGLE

MC MAHON

AV

EN

UE

PARKER

FR

ED

ER

ICK

STR

EE

TC

RA

IGD

AR

RO

CH

GR

EE

VE

S

STR

EE

T

STREET

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

BRONWYNS

HARVEY

PA

RA

DE

STREET

THIRD

AVENUE

FIFT

HTHIRD AVENUE

NINTH

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

GREA

T O

CEA

N

EIG

HT

H

SIXTH

AVENUE

SEVENTH

ME

LB

A

PA

RA

DE

HYLAND 555555555

666666666

777777777

101010101010101010

111111111111111111

888888888

444444444

999999999

333333333

222222222

111111111

Scale 1:20,000

500 0 500 m


Legend

1. Anglesea River

2. McDougall Road

3. Purnell Street/Cameron Road

4. Murray Street/Butterworth Crescent

5. Fraser Avenue/Chatswood Drive

6. Niblick Street/Fairway Drive/Birdie Avenue

7. McMahon Avenue/Belton Avenue

8. Central Anglesea

9. Great Ocean Road/Harvey Street

10. Point Roadknight (North)

11. Point Roadknight (South)

15/7/2003

'The Place of Wellbeing'


555555555

666666666

777777777

101010101010101010

111111111111111111

888888888

444444444

999999999

333333333

222222222

111111111

Scale 1:20,000

500 0 500 m



_________________________________________________________________________________________________8

4. Assessment of Key Character ElementsThe assessment of physical attributes has identified eleven precincts within Anglesea where thecharacter varies to some degree, as shown on Maps 2 and 3. For the most part however, there arecommon character elements that makes it difficult to distinguish clearly defined areas, particularly inrelation to the dominance of vegetation cover over the built environment, and informal relationshipbetween private and public land. Many features such as vegetated streets, lack of front fencing,gravel roads, single and two storey buildings and a mixture of older and more modern buildings arecommon across Anglesea.

This corresponds with the outcomes of Dr Green’s community perception analysis, which identifiesthat despite some differences between parts of Anglesea, many of the features considered tocontribute to or detract from the character of an area are common across the town. In terms ofpreferred character therefore, development controls should aim to achieve broad characterobjectives across the town rather than being based on a number of different precincts.The following is a discussion of the key character elements:

Vegetation

Low Density Vegetated Character

Vegetation cover is highest in Precincts 7, 8 and 10, with a consistent canopy cover in Precincts 1 and5. A lower canopy exists in Precincts 2, 3 and 11. The lowest cover is in Precincts 4 and 9 wherethere is also a higher degree of exotic planting and traditional lawn/gardens as opposed to the moreindigenous/native vegetation in other precincts.

Although there are variations in the extent ofvegetation cover across Anglesea, theperceptual analysis conducted by Dr Greenconfirms that property owners in all precinctsconsider vegetation, and the use of vegetation toscreen buildings, to be the most importantelement in determining whether development iscompatible with the local character.

Other features such as a lack of formal fencing,space between and around buildings and lack ofdefinition between private and public land furthercontribute to the sense of being in a naturalbush environment. It is only Precincts 4 and 9where this is not as consistent – development inthese precincts is in contrast to more heavilyvegetated precincts around them.

The existence of indigenous vegetation in roadreserves, and the proximity of many residentialareas to Council nature reserves and Crownland is important in creating the sense of anatural bush environment, even where there is alower cover of vegetation relative to other areas.It is noteworthy that in areas with low canopycover, shrubs and lower level planting for themost part still contribute to vegetatedstreetscapes (eg Precincts 2 and 11).

Buildings in Anglesea are often screened by vegetation.

Copyright ©by Dr. Ray Green 2002

Copyright ©by Dr. Ray Green 2002

Anglesea is surrounded by environmentally sensitiveCrown land on three sides


_________________________________________________________________________________________________9

Areas of indigenous bush and heathland were found to be highly supportive of town andneighbourhood character in the perceptual analysis, with the ten highest rated photos at the publicworkshop being of vegetation and natural features as opposed to the built form.

Dr Green concludes that:

“Existing established indigenous vegetation, nature reserves and views of such vegetation needto be protected if the valued character of Anglesea is to be preserved for the future”, and “that tomaximise the perceived character compatibility of new residential development, landscapedesign in such areas should be such that the built form appears to blend with the surroundingsetting and compatible landscape plant types and naturalistic planting arrangements areemployed” (Green, 2002, P21).

Developments perceived by the community asbeing highly compatible with the local characterwere recessive in the landscape and surroundedby mature native vegetation, with buildingsscreened from the street. Unmade gravelstreets with informal edges and lined withvegetation were similarly rated highly, although itwas found that even where roads were sealed,these were considered highly or moderatelycompatible with the local character whenvegetation was dominant over building elementsin the streetscape. The photos rated leastcompatible with local character showed buildingswith little space between them and lack ofvegetation around them.

It is therefore important that future development across all precincts is responsive to this by firstlyretaining existing native vegetation, particularly indigenous vegetation, and secondly allowing for theplanting of vegetation in areas with a lower cover that will assist in the medium term to makedevelopment more recessive in the landscape. This varies from the approach advocated in the‘Review of Residential Land Supply and Population Growth in Anglesea 2001’ (P31), which was toallow higher densities of development than elsewhere in areas of lower vegetation cover. The areaimmediately to the rear of the commercial centre (Precinct 2) encompassing Walker Street, WrayStreet, Mc Dougall Street and Donald Avenue is one of the few areas where a degree of mediumdensity subdivision has occurred, resulting in a high site coverage of buildings and hard surfacedriveways which has resulted in a dominance of built form and lack of opportunity for future planting.This particular area is quite visible when viewed from areas south and west of the commercial centre,in contrast to the vegetated backdrop to the north, east and west.

The size of an allotment, as well as the footprint of a building on that lot, is the most significantdeterminant of the capacity for a site to accommodate sufficient vegetation to frame and/or screendevelopment, as demonstrated in the photos below.

Vegetated roadsides assist in screening buildings

No spacing between units – is contrary to the lowdensity vegetated character and provides no

opportunity to integrate development with landscape

Large building footprint causes building to dominatestreetscape and leaves little space for planting of

vegetation on the site


_________________________________________________________________________________________________10

This is particularly evident in the central and western parts of Anglesea (Precincts 1, 7, 8 and 10)where large lot sizes have been maintained, contributing to a sense of being in a vegetatedenvironment. In Precinct 11 where the canopy cover is low, the large lot sizes and small buildingfootprints contribute to the low density built character.

It is noted that numerous tennis courts have been established in Precinct 11, limiting the capacity forfuture improvement of the tree canopy cover. The establishment of such facilities should bediscouraged, even where no vegetation is proposed to be removed, so that sites can be revegetatedin the long term.

Two old subdivisions of land in Pt Roadknight have been identified where the lots are substantiallybelow the predominant lot size of the area and houses are built over a number of combined lots.Future re-development which results in the narrow lots being resubdivided or developed individually byhouses, has significant potential to detract from the low density character of the area. Controls shouldbe introduced to limit the extent to which these lots are developed.

Landscape Vistas

Large expanses of Anglesea are visible from the public realm due to the sloping topography on eitherside of the Anglesea River. Key vistas from public vantage points as shown on Map 4 include:

1. Entry to Anglesea (east side) – views west and south-west of the ocean, Pt Roadnight andresidential areas west of the river visible as vehicles approach the town.

2. Anglesea Lookout – views eastwards and north-easterly of land on the east side of the river,including the ocean, Anglesea Main Beach, cliffs and coastline to Pt Addis and Crown land tothe east of Anglesea including Eumarella Scout Camp. Views to the south include the ocean andPt Roadnight.

3. Anglesea River bank – views from adjacent to the river, east and north-east, of vegetation in theforeshore camping ground (mainly Moonah).

4. Eumarella Scout Camp – views westwards of the township from atop the hill at Eumarella ScoutCamp and at various points along the cliff top walk. Large parts of the town are visible fromthese vantage points due to the elevated height.

5. Pt Roadknight and beach – views north and north-west over Pt Roadknight residential areas,north towards the main town centre with cliffs in the foreground stretching to the east towards PtAddis.

As well as public vistas, many views of these same areas are available from dwellings on private landand from road reserves where they are elevated.

House in Precinct 8 - Large lots enable vegetation to beretained around buildings

House in Precinct 11 – Despite low vegetation coverage,large lots create low density character

16/7/2003

Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study- Public Vistas -



11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

RO

AD

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

BETLEIGH

STREET

RO

AD

ELIZA

BETH

PATON

STREET

ELLIMATTA

STREET

STREET

LITTLE

RAM

SAY

STREET

MC

DO

UG

ALL

STREET

ALLE

NS

TR

EE

T

STREET

ALMIRA

GREA

T OCEA

N

STREET

INVER

LOCH

Y

CR

T

SC

OT

TS

TR

EE

TS

IMM

ON

S

WEBB

STR

EET

STREET

STREET

STREET

ROAD

WILKINS

RO

AD

STREET

CAM

P

PA

RA

DE

MURCH

CRESCENT

EVANS

PURNELL

ROAD

HEDLEY

STREET

STREET

VALDASTREET

STREET

STREET

MC RORIE

STREET

BR

EA

RLE

YC

OU

RT

LU

BE

L

AV

EN

UE

WRAY

RO

AD

WALKER DO

NA

LD

ROAD

CAM

ERON

GREAT OCEAN

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

GROVE

CA

MP

BIN

GLE

Y

PA

RA

DE

KENNETH

CAM

P

ST

RE

ET

BETLEIGH

ELIZABETH

ROAD

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

STREET

TO

NG

E

STR

EE

T

GREAT

OCEAN

ROAD

STREET

RO

AD

RIV

ER

RESERVE

DIG

GE

RS

BIN

GLE

Y

HALLAM

BO

N A

IR

MURRAY

PARKER

MINIFIE

MA

WS

ON

AV

EN

UE

PA

RA

DE

STREET

AVENUE

ARINYA

GABBA

CR

T

CR

ES

CE

NT

FERNALD

NOBLE

HOLMWOOD

AVENUE

AV

E

GARDINER

ROAD

STR

EE

T

STREET

AVENUE

STR

EE

T

FIRST

STREET

MC CONNELLCLOSE

INGRAM

AVENUE

ROAD

CRESCENT

PARINGA

BU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CRESCENT

STREET

STR

EE

T

JAC

KS

ON

BA

KE

R

STR

EE

T

MILNER

PE

TE

R

FOSTER

STREET

WA

LLIS

GREAT OCEAN

CRES

STR

EE

T

HARVEY

AVENUE

ROAD

AVENUE

ME

LB

A

FORREST

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

ST

RE

ET

EDWARD

STREET

SP

AR

RO

W

AVENUE

BA

NN

ISTE

R

MC MILLAN

AV

EN

UE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

NOBL

E

MC MILLAN

STR

EE

T

CH

AR

LES

STR

EE

T

GEO

RG

E

COURT

RUSSELL

CHATSWOOD

FRASER

STRE

ET

ROAD

WEI

R

RO

AD

GO

LF LIN

KS

LEWIS

CARRAWECRT

COURT

STREET

MURRAY

STREET

GO

LF

LIN

KS

RO

AD

FR

AS

ER

AV

EN

UE

DRIVE

AVENUE

AVEN

UE

HILLCREST

FRASER

TW

ELF

TH

AV

EN

UE

O`D

ON

OH

UE

ROAD

AVENUE

EIG

HT

H

AVENUE

PARADE

AVENUE

STREET

O`D

ON

OH

UE

RO

AD

NOBLE

SECOND

HARVEY

TENTH

SEVENTH

AVEN

UE

MELBA

RO

AD

SIXTH

FOURTH

AVEN

UE

FIF

TH

BELTON

MC MAHON

STREET

ST

RE

ET

BIRKDALE

DR

IVE

AVENUE

FA

IRW

AY

CLOSE

FIFT

H

GREAT

OCE

AN

ELEVENTH

NIBLICK

BE

LTO

N

BIRDIE

AVENUE

BO

GIE

CR

T

AVENUE

STREET

PA

R

STREET

STREET

HARVEY

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

COURT

DRIVE

EAGLE

MC MAHON

AV

EN

UE

PARKER

FR

ED

ER

ICK

STR

EE

T

CR

AIG

DA

RR

OC

H

GR

EEVES

STR

EE

T

STREET

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

HARVEY

PA

RA

DE

STREET

THIRD

AVENUE

FIFT

H

THIRD AVENUE

NINTH

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

GREA

T OCEA

N

EIG

HT

H

SIXTH

AVENUE

SEVENTH

ME

LB

A

PA

RA

DE

HYLAND

Scale 1:25,000

500 0 500 1000 m


_________________________________________________________________________________________________11

A key feature of the landscape views is thatmuch of the town appears well vegetated withbuildings not highly dominant. For the most part,views of land within the township are ofvegetation interspersed with the tops of buildingsvisible in front of a tree canopy back drop. Theexception is a narrow band of buildings reachingwestwards from the ‘Four Kings’ corner on theGreat Ocean Road and Harvey Street, and aband of properties north of the shopping centreand south of Purnell Street. These findingscorrespond directly with the level of tree canopycover, with only buildings on land in areas of lowcover in Precincts 2, 3 and 9 being highly visible.The balance of land in the town as seen frompublic viewing points has a high canopy coverthat dominates the built form.

The perceptual analysis of Dr Green identifies that landscape views within the town are highly valuedby the community, with scenes depicting natural landscape features, such as the ocean, cliffs and PtRoadknight, and botanical features such as the heathlands and Moonah trees, rated most highlycompatible with local character at the public workshop. These findings reinforce the importance ofindigenous vegetation, and canopy trees in particular, to the visual character of the town, and theneed to both preserve the vegetation cover and control the size and height of buildings, in order toavoid increased visibility of built form in the natural landscape. It may not be so critical that buildingsbe screened from view entirely when viewed from a distance, rather it is important that buildings notprotrude above the canopy of the vegetation, and that when viewed from a distance only a smallpercentage of the building is visible against the backdrop of vegetation around the building. Roofcolours should be in subdued tones to minimise reflectivity.

Vegetation Types

Despite exotic forms of vegetation existing across all precincts of Anglesea to varied degrees (more soin Precinct 9 in the vicinity of Tonge Street and in Precinct 11 where both the understorey and canopyvegetation has been highly modified), it is native vegetation (including indigenous vegetation) thatcontributes strongly to the native vegetated character of the town. This is reflected in the communityperception analysis of Dr Green, which finds that there is a high correlation between the aestheticlandscape value of environmental weeds and exotic forms of vegetation, and the environmentalvalue of that vegetation. Moonah (particularly where more intact adjacent to the Anglesea RiverWoodlands), heathland, Grass Trees and flowering heathland shrubs are all represented in photosrated highest in terms of neighbourhood character compatability. Messmate Stringybark Woodlandspecies are also rated as being highly compatible with Anglesea character, this being the dominantform of vegetation in the town. Exotic vegetation including environmental weeds is identified asdetracting from the neighbourhood character, including pampas grass, agapanthus, pine and cypresstrees, although the contribution of exotic vegetation to the character of Precinct 9 is acknowledged.

Although it is indigenous vegetation that is most important to thecharacter of Anglesea, other native species are prevalent andcontribute to the character, being more sympathetic to the naturalenvironment than exotic species such as Agapanthus. Planningcontrols should therefore control the removal of native vegetation,and give priority to the retention of, and planting of indigenousvegetation with any new development. Controlling only the removalof indigenous species could have an adverse impact on the visualcharacter of some streets. Exotic vegetation should bediscouraged, however environmental weeds should be specificallydiscouraged in the Planning Scheme due to their threat to theenvironmental value of the indigenous vegetation. However anyproposal to prohibit weed species cannot be achieved via the

View looking westwards from Cliff top walk east of Anglesea

Copyright © Dr. Ray Green 2002

Austral Grass Tree


_________________________________________________________________________________________________12

Planning Scheme, and should be considered as a local law.Education of both existing and future land owners should be givenpriority in order to complement regulatory mechanisms and increasethe likelihood of behavioral change.

The Coastal Moonah Woodland vegetation on private land identifiedon Maps 6 and 7 not only has high aesthetic value, but warrantsapplication of controls which more particularly limit the impact ofdevelopment and associated activities as compared to the balanceof the town, due to its high environmental significance (refer‘Vegetation Assessment’ at Chapter 5).

Summary of Vegetation Related Issues

A clear conclusion of this Study is that the low density of built form and high vegetation cover overmuch of the town is highly contributory to its character. The need to retain existing vegetation cover,particularly the ‘Messmate Stringybark Woodland’ community which exists in varied quality across thetown, is most important to retaining the character of the town not just at a street level, but from abroader landscape perspective as well. Application of overlay controls that require a planning permitfor removal of native vegetation is justified on this basis. Stands of the threatened Coastal MoonahWoodland, particularly in Pt Roadknight, should be given planning protection that reflects it’senvironmental significance.

It will be important for retention and enhancement of the existing character that lots created bysubdivision and/or medium density development are of a size that is respectful of the existing patternof large lots and has adequate area to accommodate a building and vegetation around it.Impracticalities of planting/retaining vegetation in narrow setbacks and close to buildings should beacknowledged. Development in the western part of Anglesea (Precincts 7, 10 and 11) for example,should be at a lower density than the eastern part of the town in recognition of the different sized lotsin those areas. In order to achieve objectives of housing diversity, opportunity could be given to ahigher density of housing immediately adjoining the shops and community facilities, provided that thefloor area of buildings is strictly limited and the vegetation cover can be significantly enhanced. Sucha proposal would avoid sloping vegetated land on the west side of the river that is highly visible in thelandscape.

The footprint of buildings and hard surface areas across all land in Anglesea should be limited by sitecoverage controls so that space is maintained around individual buildings capable of supportingscreening vegetation – current site coverage provisions should be reviewed to ensure they areeffective in achieving this objective (refer Chapter 7). Establishment of recreational facilities such astennis courts should be discouraged, and emphasis should be given to enhancement of areas of lowvegetation cover by requiring the planting of indigenous vegetation as part of development proposals.

Recommendation� Permit requirements for removal native vegetation should be retained.� Retention and enhancement of the indigenous vegetation cover should be a foremost objective.� Site coverage controls on both buildings and hard surfaces should be retained, but reviewed to

ensure that larger houses are restricted to larger lots (see Chapter 7), and to maximise areas forgrowth of screening vegetation. The provisions should give emphasis to re-establishingvegetation on sites with with low vegetation cover.

� Lots/house sites created by subdivision or medium density development should be of a size thatmaintains adequate area around buildings to retain existing vegetation and allow planting of newvegetation that will enhance the vegetation cover and integrate buildings with the landscape - referto Chapter 7 for recommended changes to lot sizes and development density controls.

� All permit applications for removal of vegetation or development should be accompanied by alandscape plan that shows replacement planting such that a net gain is achieved, and planting ofnew indigenous vegetation in areas of low vegetation cover even when no vegetation is to beremoved.

� Controls should be introduced to restrict development of old subdivisions in Point Roadknight.

Copyright ©Dr. Ray Green 2002

Agapanthus - weed


_________________________________________________________________________________________________13

� Parking should be discouraged in front of dwellings so as to maximise opportunities for vegetativescreening between buildings and the street.

� Priority should be given to education of land owners about environmental weeds and preferredindigenous planting, as well as increased resourcing of enforcement of conditions of permits thatrequire vegetation to be retained and/or planted.

� Street planting schemes should be developed and implemented for areas of low vegetationcanopy to complement strategies applied to private land in the Planning Scheme.

Fencing

Front Fences

The lack of front fencing across land in allprecincts is a feature which contributessignificantly to the non-urban character of thetown. Together with vegetation cover (andgravel roads in some cases), this feature createsan informal streetscape where the vegetationdominates. Whilst there are isolated examplesof properties having either low or high frontfences, and in some cases such as Noble Streetor Melba Parade (south of Great Ocean Road)front fencing occurs along whole sections of thestreet, these are in the minority. A notableexception is Precinct 4 where the majority ofdwellings in Butterworth Crescent and MurrayStreet have a low front fence constructed eitherof brick or chain mesh. Where front fencingdoes exist, it is often in areas subject to highrates of pedestrian traffic.

It will be important to the maintenance of a non-urban character that front fences be discouragedthroughout all of the town. Where necessary, front fences should be limited to timber post and wire tomaintain a sense of openess to the street.

Side Boundary Fences

A lack of formal side boundary fencingthroughout Anglesea also contributes to its non-urban appearance. Although the incidence ofside boundary fencing is higher than for frontfences, there is a high use of post and wirefencing or no fencing at all between properties.This is reinforced in the community perceptionanalysis of Dr. Green which identifies the lack offencing around buildings as being compatiblewith the local character.

In some precincts such as Precincts 10 and 11in Pt Roadknight, Precincts 7 and 8 in CentralAnglesea and Precinct 1 around the AngleseaRiver, open boundaries and use of vegetationfor screening is predominant, with solid sidefencing (such as timber paling) relatively limited.

Post and wire fences contribute strongly to the non urbancharacter

Lack of front fencing creates an informal edge between thestreet and private land, and increases the sense of setback


_________________________________________________________________________________________________14

The incidence of paling side fences in otherprecincts is higher, with a mix of propertieshaving no fencing, post and wire fencing orpaling fences along boundaries. This may beattributed to a desire for privacy on smaller lotsin those precincts (being particularly evident onlots that have been re-subdivided for higherdensities of development), and lots developed inmore recent years (such as Precincts 4, 5 and 6)compared to the earlier settled parts of the townwhere the housing stock is older.

Timber paling fences on side boundaries havethe effect of increasing the sense of‘urbanisation’. The further establishment of thisform of fencing in Anglesea therefore hassignificant potential to detract from the currentcharacter in all precincts, particularly wherevisible from the street, although more so inthose areas that have a relatively low incidence of such fencing at present. It will be important thatplanning controls discourage timber paling fences in favour of open style fencing such as post andwire, with continued reliance on natural vegetation between dwellings for privacy. Controls currentlyapplying to the western parts of Anglesea at present should preferably be extended across allprecincts so that post and wire fencing is allowed “as-of-right”, and that planning permits be sought forsolid fences. The controls should specify limited circumstances where solid fencing may be permitted,which could include:

� Fencing sited behind the front wall of an existing building.� Short sections of fence designed to achieve privacy between properties where there is inadequate

existing vegetation.� Fencing is part permeable to reduce the visual impact of the fence.

In addition, lots created by subdivision should not be of a size that necessitates solid side boundaryfencing to achieve privacy objectives. Encouraging open style fencing will itself assist to achieve otherobjectives of maintaining and enhancing vegetation cover by encouraging the planting of vegetationalong boundaries.

Recommendation:� Front fencing should be discouraged, and any new fencing should be limited to post and wire.� Side boundary fencing should be limited to post and wire across all of Anglesea, and land owners

encouraged to use vegetation as screening for privacy. Performance criteria for consideration ofapplications for solid forms of fencing as outlined above should be adopted.

� The minimum lot size for subdivision/maximum development density should be reviewed toensure that informal forms of fence, together with landscaping can be used to achieve adequatelevels of privacy as opposed to erecting paling fences (refer Chapter 7).

Building Bulk/Design

Style/Materials

There is a variation in the age and style of housing across Anglesea, with small fibro/weatherboardhouses constructed prior to the 1970s common in Precincts 1, 3 and 11 and to a lesser degree,Precincts 2 and 9. These precincts contrast with later developed areas such as Precincts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8and 10, where houses are mostly timber clad but interspersed with other construction types such asblockwork, face brickwork, rendered cladding and colourbond/ galvanised iron.

Paling fence associated with a two lot subdivision – shouldbe avoided


_________________________________________________________________________________________________15

Notwithstanding some examples of more‘suburban’ forms such as traditional use of facebrickwork and tile roofs in the latter mentionedprecincts (particularly Precinct 4), the dominantbuilding form across all precincts is timbercladding with colourbond roofs. It is the lowoccurrence of typical urban building forms that isa key feature contributing to the low density non-urban character of the town. This is reinforcedby the outcomes of the community perceptionsanalysis of Dr. Green, where photos ratedlowest in terms of compatability with localcharacter across all precincts comprise typicalurban forms.

New development does not need to repeat thestyle of existing housing in a particular part ofAnglesea to preserve and enhance thischaracter. Rather emphasis should be placed onthe materials and colours that are used, theintegration of buildings with the landscape,height, setback and the size and articulation ofthe building. More than building style, theseelements will most often be deciding factors onwhether a development is compatible (this isdiscussed in detail below). ‘Suburban’ lookinghouses using face brickwork and tile roofsshould be discouraged, and land ownersencouraged to use timber and other materialsnoted above.

The Surf Coast Design and Colours local policypolicy (now Surf Coast Style) makes thesereferences in relation to coastal development ingeneral, but only applies when a planning permitis required. Under the current controls, singledwellings not exceeding 5m height and othercriteria do not require a permit, and noopportunity exists to influence the buildingdesign. On balance however, the degree that‘suburban’ looking development occurs isrelatively low, and it is considered unnecessaryto introduce permit requirements for allbuildings. The current controls allowconsideration of the design of larger dwellings,and it these buildings that have increasedpotential to detract from the town’s character.Emphasis should continue to be placed oneducation and encouragement of land owners inrelation to the Surf Coast Design (Style)principles. The current requirement to submitdetails of materials even when a permit is notrequired is ‘ultra vires’ and should be deleted.

Recommendation:� The current permit requirement where building exceeds 5m height is supported. Plans for

approval requirements for buildings materials where a permit is not required should be deleted.� The Surf Coast Style Guide (previously Surf Coast Design) currently in production should be

circulated as widely as possible as an educative tool.

Timber house characteristic of dwellings in Anglesea

Should be avoided – buildings that incorporate the use oftraditional urban materials such as bricks and tiles

Modern housing style consistent with ‘preferred character’


_________________________________________________________________________________________________16

Possible Heritage Significance

It is noted that houses fronting Great OceanRoad between Minifie Avenue and the “FourKings” corner, as well as some houses frontingHarvey Street and Tonge Street in that vicinityare of a style and age that may have heritagesignificance. The properties are listed in theStage 1 report of the Surf Coast Heritage Study,and it is recommended that priority be attachedto this potential being investigated. Demolitionof these sites or redevelopment that alters thebuilding style and/or street setback should notbe contemplated without reference to theheritage significance. This should be flagged inthe MSS as part of any amendment to theplanning scheme resulting from this Study.

The properties having potential heritage significance are not intact as a ‘precinct’ which would warrantthem being set apart from immediately surrounding land in Precincts 1 and 9 as described in Chapter7 of this Study, with only those houses fronting Great Ocean Road north of ‘Four Kings’ having anintegrated relationship.

Recommendation:� Investigate as a priority the heritage significance of the Tonge Street/Great Ocean Road precinct

as part of Stage 2 of the Heritage Study, and flag this potential in the MSS .

Building Bulk, Density, Massing and Articulation

Dr. Green’s analysis of community perceptions identifies that the significant bulk of some buildings,and lack of articulation of those buildings, is a substantial factor in making them detract from the localcharacter. A number of the buildings considered by residents to be incompatible with the character ofthe area (across all precincts), demonstrate characteristics that include ‘boxy’ facades or high wallsfronting the street, with little surface articulation, and a large scale of building form relative to the sizeof the allotment and surrounding development.

Apart from articulation of a particular building, an important element of building bulk is the density ofbuildings within a particular location. Several of the photos rated as moderately or highly incompatiblewith Anglesea character were of medium density developments or subdivisions which arecharacterised by a number of buildings constructed close together with little space around them. Theimportance of vegetated space between buildings to the low density character of Anglesea isdiscussed earlier under the heading ‘Vegetation’.

To ensure future development is complementary to the preferred character, the density ofsubdivision/medium density development should be more limited to enable space between buildingsfor vegetation, and sizable buildings should be limited to larger allotments where they can be moreeffectively screened from the street and surrounding properties. The scale and bulk of developments

Houses fronting Great Ocean Road – opposite AngleseaRiver

‘Boxy’ building facades High blank walls Bulky building forms


_________________________________________________________________________________________________17

on smaller lots should be minimised to avoid adverse impact on the low density character. The designof buildings, particularly where they exceed one storey in height, or are within an integrateddevelopment should be controlled to ensure that the above mentioned characteristics are avoided.The principles outlined in the Surf Coast Design and Colours Policy (now Surf Coast Style) provide agood policy basis for consideration of permit applications in respect of building design, bulk andarticulation, and education of land owners to encourage the use of Surf Coast Design (Style) principlesshould be given high priority.

Recommendation:� Current permit requirements for buildings that exceed 5m in height are supported.� The principles of Surf Coast Design (Style) are an appropriate assessment tool for development

applications.� The Surf Coast Style Guide (based on Surf Coast Design principles) currently in production should

be circulated as widely as possible to land owners, new purchasers of land in Anglesea and localbuilding designers as an educative tool.

� A combination of plot ratio and site coverage provisions are supported to control the size ofbuildings relative to land size. These are reviewed in Chapter 7.

� Subdivision lot size and development density provisions are supported to ensure that buildings arespaced from one another and from property boundaries to achieve a low density character.

External Building Colours

Dwellings exhibit varied external colourschemes, with no distinct pattern identified,except that for the most part buildings areconstructed of pale or natural tones. Thiscorresponds with Dr. Green’s conclusion fromthe community perception analysis that thecommunity perceive buildings in pale tones to becompatible with local character as opposed tostrong colours. Future development should beencouraged to incorporate colour schemes thatare consistent with this assessment. Wherelight colours such as white, cream or yellow areproposed for external walls, paler rather thanbold shades are encouraged. Roof colours arediscussed elsewhere in respect of views andlandscape vistas, and should be in subduedtones to minimise reflectivity.

It is considered unecessary for colour schemes of all buildings to be submitted for planning approvalas occurs at present, rather consideration of colours should be limited to circumstances whereplanning permits are required for the building itself (ie buildings more than one storey, where the visualimpact of the building is greater). A permit should be required for the use of zincalume and galvanisediron so that the most reflective roof forms are avoided on single storey houses.

It is noted from analysis of the Case Study developments at Appendix 6, that a diversity of colourschemes within multi-dwelling developments assists them to more effectively integrate with thesurrounding environment. This should be encouraged, particularly in larger developments.

Recommendation:� Delete the current requirement for plans for approval to be submitted showing external colours

and materials, and require a permit for use of galvanised iron or zincalume as a roof material.� Where permits are required, encourage pale and natural colours as opposed to bright, dark and

bold colours for external walls, and subdued coloured roofs that are non-reflective.� Encourage a diversity of colour schemes in multi-dwelling developments.

Modern building with light colour scheme which blends withthe natural setting


_________________________________________________________________________________________________18

Building Height

Building height throughout the town is a mix of one and two storey buildings, with no identifiablepattern save for Precinct 4 which is almost predominantly single storey in character. There is only alimited number of three storey houses. For the most part however, where buildings are of two storeys,the height is relatively consistent, being 7.5m or lower - reflecting the current policy of limiting height tono more than 7.5m. In many parts of Anglesea, this results in buildings that are either at or below theheight of the prevailing tree canopy, or marginally above it, particularly where buildings are sited onsloping land. Buildings are more prominent in areas of low vegetation cover (eg Precincts 2, 3 and 11).

The analysis of community perceptions by DrGreen indicates that the community does notperceive two storey development itself asdetracting from the neighbourhood character,rather it is the visual impact of large sizeddwellings which present as being out of scalewith the site and surrounding area that isconsidered imcompatible with local character (ie.three storey dwellings and large two storeydwellings).

To ensure the height of future development doesnot adversely affect the low density character, apermit should be required for dwellingsexceeding one storey, and buildings shouldgenerally be limited to two storeys andconstructed to a height that is consistent with theprevailing height of two storey development (ie 7.5m). A lower height may be appropriate in somecircumstances where the site is visually prominent when viewed from the public realm, a sharing ofviews with adjoining properties can be achieved, the prevailing tree canopy is low or the design of thebuilding creates a sense of bulk (building bulk is discussed separately above). Existing dwellings inPrecincts 3 and 11 for example, are more prominent when viewed from both the immediatelysurrounding area and from public vantage points at a distance. A lower building height than 7.5m maybe justified in these circumstances.

Recommendation:� The current permit requirement for buildings exceeding 5m in height should be retained.� Buildings should not exceed two storeys, and building height should be limited to no more than

7.5m as at present. The performance criteria for variations to this height should be related back tothe achievement of the character objectives identified in the Study.

Building Setbacks

Dwellings throughout Anglesea have a variety ofsetbacks from the road, with no discernabledifferences between precincts save for Precincts7, 10 and 11 where substantial setbackscorrespond with larger lot sizes. A lack of frontfencing and vegetation around buildings in manyareas contributes to a feeling of space betweenbuildings and the road. In many cases, houseshave been sited in consistent patterns,particularly where land is sloping and views ofthe ocean and other features are enjoyed. Inthese circumstances, such as at the western endof Noble Street, Clairville Street or BeltonAvenue, houses are constructed close to thestreet on one side of the road, and at the rear ofthe property on the other side.

Three storey buildings are not consistent with the lowscale built character

Building has inadequate setback to the street – appearsdominant in the landscape


_________________________________________________________________________________________________19

As with street setbacks, attributes such as vegetation around buildings and lack of fencing combinewith setbacks from side boundaries and space between buildings to create a low density non-urbancharacter through most of the town. It will be important for future maintenance of the low densitycharacter of the town that new development is consistent with the prevailing setback of a street.

Recommendation:� Review the setback provisions that apply under Clauses 54 and 55 of the planning scheme to

ensure that the preferred character objectives are met (refer Chapter 7).

Views

The community perception analysis of Dr Green notes that whilst many of the character elementsconsidered compatible with neighbourhood character by the community were similar across allprecincts, one of the differences between the precincts was the value placed on views from privateland in the western part of Anglesea and Pt Roadknight to key natural features such as the ocean, thecliff tops, Pt Roadknight and Pt Addis. Views from properties in these regions are made possible bythe slope, but are dependent to some degree on the extent of vegetation in the foreground.

Views of these features, as well as those of thehinterland bush are also available from variousother parts of Anglesea, including the north-eastern most part of Precinct 3, land north of thecommercial centre in Precinct 2, the northernmost part of Precinct 5 and the western mostpart of Precinct 8. River views are also availableto properties in precincts abutting the river.

As identified by Dr. Green, the communityattaches importance to views of natural features.It is therefore important that future developmentin Anglesea occurs in a way which enables a‘reasonable sharing of the views’ to be achieved.

Although view sharing is a broad principle to apply, it is one which has been supported in the currentPlanning Scheme and in decisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) over anumber of years. It requires planning control over the height, siting and design of dwellings, and anassessment of the view impact of a development on a case by case basis.

The current planning scheme requires a permit across most of Anglesea where building heightexceeds 5m, with the maximum height limited to 7.5m. This control allows consideration ofdevelopment impacts on views at the first floor level, which is where the impact on views is potentiallyhighest, but doesn’t differentiate between areas where views are available (which would be difficultgiven the variety of ocean and landscape views available). The controls appropriately recognise theimportance of ocean views and those of significant natural features, and reflect past practice in coastaltowns within the Shire of seeking to achieve a ‘reasonable sharing’ of these views. They also requireroof colours to be subdued in colour to avoid glare when viewed from beyond the site, which isappropriate where views are enjoyed from properties elevated above the site, or from the public realm.

Recommendation:� The current permit requirement for buildings exceeding 5m height, and policy maximum height of

7.5m are appropriate and should be retained.� View sharing objectives in the Scheme are appropriate and should be retained.� Where permits are required for development, roof colours should be subdued to comply with the

Subdued Colours Policy 1996. A permit should be required for use of zincalume and galvanisediron roofs.

View of Point Roadknight


_________________________________________________________________________________________________20

Informal Appearance of Roads

The informal construction of many roads throughout Anglesea is a feature which, along with vegetatedstreetscapes, contributes highly to the character of Anglesea, and the feeling in parts of being in a‘bush setting’ as opposed to a suburban environment. With the exception of areas more recentlyestablished in Precincts 5, 6 and 7 (at the western and north-western edges of the town) which containsealed bitumen roads with concrete kerbing, the balance of the town is a mix of sealed roads andthose with a gravel surface and informal verges – refer Map 5. In Point Roadknight south of GreatOcean Road (Precinct 11), several sealed roads have an informal appearance due to a gravelcoloured, pebble textured seal with less formal kerbing, differentiating them considerably from thetraditional bitumen seal.

The contribution of the informal appearance ofgravel roads to the character of Anglesea isconfirmed in the community perception analysisof Dr Green. Amongst the photos rated mosthighly compatible with local character by thecommunity are those that include views alonggravel roads with vegetation along the roadside.Photos of sealed roads were rated less highly.

In order to maintain the current character, theCouncil should either retain gravel road surfaceswithin the town, or alternatively giveconsideration to ensuring that futureconstruction and sealing of these roads occursin a way which retains their informalappearance. This can be achieved byminimising carriageway widths, using informalverges other than traditional concrete kerbingand/or using a pavement surface similar to thatin the southern parts of Pt Roadknight whichhas a white pebble appearance.

Whilst the cost of these alternative treatments isunknown, the outcome of implementing themwould be to reduce the ‘suburban’ appearanceof new roads. Land owners should beencouraged to use these methods whendesigning new residential subdivisions and/orconstructing driveway access to individualhouses.

Constructed footpaths also have potential to reduce the informal character of roadsides, and shouldbe avoided where possible. Means of reducing the visual impact of footpaths include meandering thepath within the naturestrip to avoid vegetation,constructing the path of materials other than bitumenand concrete, and locating the path against the kerb to maximise area for vegetation in the naturestripto screen buildings from view. Street planting should occur in an ad-hoc fashion as opposed to theregular spacing of trees in traditional steet planting schemes.

Recommendation:� A policy should be developed that considers the use of alternatives to typical bitumen seal and

concrete kerbing in both new roads and reconstruction of existing roads .� New footpaths should be avoided where possible, and constructed in ways which retain the

informal appearance of roadsides.� Street planting should be irregular as opposed to being evenly spaced.� Policy references to use of informal materials for private driveways in preference to concrete

should be strengthened.

Informal roadsides highly compatible with character

Alternative road treatment in Point Roadknight

15/7/2003

Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study- Sealed & Unsealed Roads -



The Surf Coast Shire Council and its employeesdo not guarantee that this product is not withoutflaws or inaccuracies and therefore disclaims allliability for any error, loss or consequences whichmay arise from the dependence of this product.

RO

AD

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

BETLEIGH

STREET

RO

AD

ELIZABE

TH

PA

TO

N

STR

EE

T

ELLIMATTA

MANNA GUM

CLO

SE

STR

EE

T

STREET

LIT

TLE

RA

MS

AY

STR

EE

T

MC

DO

UG

ALL

STREET

ALLE

NS

TR

EE

T

STREET

ALMIRA

GR

EAT O

CE

AN

STREET

INVERLO

CHY

CR

T

SC

OT

TS

TR

EE

T

SIM

MO

NS

WEBB

STR

EET

STR

EET

STREET

STREET

RO

AD

WILKINS

RO

AD

STREET

CAM

P

PA

RA

DE

MURCH

CRESCENT

EVA

NS

PURNELL

RO

AD

HEDLEY STR

EE

T

STREET

VALDA STREET

STREET

STREET

MC RORIE

STREET

BR

EA

RL

EY

CO

UR

T

LU

BE

L

AV

EN

UE

WRAY

RO

AD

WALKER

DO

NA

LD

ROAD

CA

ME

RO

N

GREAT OCEAN

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

GROVE

CA

MP

BIN

GLE

Y

PA

RA

DE

KENNETH

CA

MP

ST

RE

ET

BETLEIGH

ELIZABETH

RO

AD

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

STREET

TO

NG

E

ST

RE

ET

GREAT

OCEAN

ROAD

STREET

RO

AD

RIV

ER

RE

SE

RV

E

DIG

GE

RS

CR

T

BIN

GLE

Y

HALLAM HE

AT

HE

R

BO

N A

IR

MU

RR

AY

PARKER

MINIFIE

MA

WS

ON

AV

EN

UE

PA

RA

DE

STREET

AVENUE

ARINYA

GA

BB

AC

RT

CR

ES

CE

NT

FERNALD

NOBLE

HOLMWOOD

AVENUE

AV

E

GARDINER

RO

AD

ST

RE

ET

STREET

AVENUE

STR

EE

T

FIRST

STREET

MC CONNELL CLOSE

INGRAM

AVENUE

ROAD

CRESCENT

PARINGA

BU

TT

ER

WO

RT

H

CRESCENT

STREET

STR

EE

T

JAC

KS

ON

BA

KE

RS

TR

EE

T

MILN

ER

PE

TE

R

FOSTER

STREET

WA

LLIS

GREAT OCEAN

CRES

ST

RE

ET

HARVEY

CRT

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

ME

LB

A

FORREST

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

ST

RE

ET

EDWARDSTREET

SP

AR

RO

W

AVENUE

BA

NN

ISTE

R

MC MILLAN

AV

EN

UE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

NO

BLE

MC MILLAN

STR

EE

TC

HA

RLE

S

STR

EE

TG

EO

RG

E

CR

T

COURT

RUSSELL

CHATSWOOD

FRASER

BR

EN

TLA

UR

EN

STR

EET

ROAD

WEIR

RO

AD

GO

LF

LIN

KS

LEWIS

CARRAWECRT

COURT

STR

EET

MU

RR

AY

STREET

GO

LF

LI N

KS

RO

AD

FR

AS

ER

AV

EN

UE

DRIVE

AVENUE

AVENU

E

HILLCREST

FRASER

TW

ELF

TH

AV

EN

UEO

`DO

NO

HU

E

ROAD

AVENUE

EIG

HT

H

AVENUE

PARADE

AVENUE

STREET

O`D

ON

OH

UE

RO

AD

NOBLE

SECOND

HARVEY

TENTH

SE

VEN

TH

AV

EN

UE

MELBA

RO

AD

SIXTH

FOURTH

AV

EN

UE

FIF

TH

BELTON

MC MAHON

STREET

ST

RE

ET

BIRKDALE

DR

IVE

AVENUE

FA

IRW

AY

CLOSE

FIF

TH

GREAT O

CEAN

ELEVENTH

NIBLIC

K

BE

LTO

N

BIRDIE

AVENUE

BO

GIE

CR

T

AVENUE

STREET

PA

R

STREET

STREET

HARVEY

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

COURT

DRIVE

EAGLE

MC MAHON

AV

EN

UE

PARKER

FR

ED

ER

ICK

STR

EE

TC

RA

IGD

AR

RO

CH

GR

EE

VE

S

STR

EE

T

STREET

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

BRONWYNS

HARVEY

PA

RA

DE

STREET

THIR

D

AVENUE

FIF

TH

THIRD AVENUE

NINTH

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

GR

EAT O

CEAN

EIG

HT

H

SIXTH

AVENUE

SEVENTH

ME

LB

A

PA

RA

DE

HYLAND

Scale 1:20,000

500 0 500 m

Legend

Unsealed Roads

Sealed Roads


_________________________________________________________________________________________________21

5. Vegetation assessment

The vegetation assessment by Mark Trengove (refer Appendix 2) complements other work undertakenas part of the Neighbourhood Character Study, enabling both the environmental value and charactercompatibility of vegetation in the town to be considered together. Mark Trengove identified fiveindigenous vegetation communities within Anglesea township, as shown on Maps 6 and 7. Table 1describes these, indicating the degree of conservation significance associated with various sites.

Table 1 Vegetation Types

Vegetation Community Assessment

Messmate StringybarkWoodlandOpen woodland dominated byMessmate Stringybark, with:• Manna Gum• Swamp Gum• Narrow Leaf PeppermintUnderstorey of small heathlandshrubs, grasses, sedges &herbaceous species

Derived from the “HeathyWoodland” Ecological VegetationCommunity (EVC) No.48

• Covers majority of residential areas except coastal fringe andAnglesea River valley communities.

• High (state) conservation significance – Edna BowmanReserve (Purnell St)

• High to moderate (state to regional) conservationsignificance – Alcoa land north of Fraser Avenue/Golf Club(ref 21) & crown land north of Inverlochy St industrial estate &Barwon Water (ref 2)

• Moderate (regional) conservation significance – LutheranCamp site in Betleigh St (ref 3), Council reserve betweenParinga Cr and Carrawe Crt (ref 4), private land b/w First Avand Melba Pde north of Great Ocean Road (ref 5) and land inwest/central Anglesea (ref 22 & 23)

• Balance of the community is of local significance due to pasthuman disturbance, caused by residential development.

HeathlandLow closed shrubland dominatedby sclerophyllous shrubs withoccasional MessmateStringybark. Dominant speciesinclude:• Silver Banksia• Dwarf Sheoake• Common Heath• Austral Grass-treeCo-dominant species includesedges & herbaceous species

• Distribution limited to crown land at Elizabeth Street andLookout Flora Reserves (ref 11 and 12)

• Both sites of High (state) conservation significance.

Swamp Gum/Riparian ComplexComplex of vegetation typesassociated with damp non-salineareas. Includes:• Closed Swamp Gum

Woodland• Closed Scented Paperbark• Prickly Tea-tree• Sedgeland

• Distribution confined to the non-saline areas of the AngleseaRiver flood plain upstream of Great Ocean Road (includingCoogoorah Park) and the modified tributary that comprisesthe Weir Street reserves (including Kuaka Dorla Reserve).

• Site adjacent to Anglesea River (ref 13) is relatively intact andof High (state) conservation significance.

• The Weir St reserves (ref 14) are of Moderate (regional)conservation significance.



RO

AD

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

BETLEIGH

STREET

RO

AD

ELIZAB

ETHPATO

N

STREET

ELLIMATTA

MANNA GUM

CLO

SE

STR

EET

STREET

LITTLE

RAM

SAY

STR

EET

MC

DO

UG

ALL

STREET

ALLE

NS

TR

EE

T

STREET

ALMIRA

GREAT

OCEAN

STREET

INVE

RLOCHY

CR

T

SC

OT

TS

TR

EE

T

SIM

MO

NS

WEBB

STR

EET

STREET

STREET

STREET

RO

AD

WILKINS

RO

AD

STREET

CAM

P

PA

RA

DE

MURCH

CRESCENT

EVAN

S

PURNELL

RO

AD

HEDLEY S

TREET

STREET

VALDA STREET

STREET

STREET

MC RORIE

STREET

BR

EA

RLE

YC

OU

RT

LU

BE

L

AV

EN

UE

WRAY

RO

AD

WALKER

DO

NA

LD

ROAD

CAM

ER

ON

GREAT OCEAN

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

GROVE

CA

MP

BIN

GLE

Y

PA

RA

DE

KENNETH

CAM

P

ST

RE

ET

BETLEIGH

ELIZABETH

ROAD

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

STREET

TO

NG

E

STR

EE

T

GREAT

OCEAN

ROAD

STREET

RO

AD

RIV

ER

RESER

VE

DIG

GE

RS

CR

T

BIN

GLE

Y

HALLAM HE

AT

HE

R

BO

N A

IR

MURRAY

PARKER

MINIFIE

MA

WS

ON

AV

EN

UE

PA

RA

DE

STREET

AVENUE

ARINYA

GABBA

CR

T

CR

ES

CE

NT

FERNALD

NOBLE

HOLMWOOD

AVENUE

WA

Y

AV

E

GARDINER

ROAD

STR

EE

T

STREET

AVENUE

STR

EE

T

FIRST

STREET

MC CONNELL CLOSE

INGRAM

AVENUE

ROAD

CRESCENT

PARINGA

BU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CRESCENT

STREET

STR

EE

T

JAC

KS

ON

BA

KE

RS

TR

EE

T

MILNER

PE

TE

R

FOSTER

STREET

WA

LLIS

GREAT OCEAN

CRES

STR

EE

T

HARVEY

CRT

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

ME

LB

A

FORREST

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

ST

RE

ET

EDWARDSTREET

SP

AR

RO

W

AVENUE

BA

NN

ISTE

R

MC MILLAN

AV

EN

UE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

NOBL

E

MC MILLAN

STR

EE

TC

HA

RLE

S

STR

EE

TG

EO

RG

E

CRT

COURT

RUSSELL

CHATSWOOD

FRASER

BREN

TLAU

REN

STREE

T

ROAD

WEI

R

RO

AD

GO

LF L

INK

S

LEWIS

CARRAWE

CRT

COURT

STREET

MURRAY

STREET

GO

LF

LIN

KS

RO

AD

FR

AS

ER

AV

EN

UE

DRIVE

AVENUE

AVEN

UE

HILLCREST

FRASER

TW

ELF

TH

AV

EN

UEO

`DO

NO

HU

E

ROAD

AVENUE

EIG

HT

H

AVENUE

PARADE

AVENUE

STREET

O`D

ON

OH

UE

RO

AD

NOBLE

SECOND

HARVEY

TENTH

SEVEN

TH

AVENUE

MELBA

RO

AD

SIXTH

FOURTH

AVENUE

FIF

TH

BELTON

MC MAHON

STREET

ST

RE

ET

BIRKDALE

DR

IVE

AVENUE

FA

IRW

AY

CLOSE

FIF

TH

GREAT O

CEAN

ELEVENTH

NIBLICK

BE

LTO

N

BIRDIE

AVENUE

BO

GIE

CR

T

AVENUE

STREET

PA

R

STREET

STREET

HARVEY

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

COURT

DRIVE

EAGLE

MC MAHON

AV

EN

UE

PARKER

FR

ED

ER

ICK

STR

EE

TC

RA

IGD

AR

RO

CH

GR

EE

VE

S

STR

EE

T

STREET

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

BRONWYNS

HARVEY

PA

RA

DE

STREET

THIRD

AVENUE

FIFT

HTHIRD AVENUE

NINTH

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

GREA

T O

CEA

N

EIG

HT

H

SIXTH

AVENUE

SEVENTH

ME

LB

A

PA

RA

DE

HYLAND

999999999

252525252525252525

191919191919191919 111111111

171717171717171717

101010101010101010

111111111111111111

202020202020202020

161616161616161616

444444444

141414141414141414

333333333

151515151515151515

121212121212121212

555555555

212121212121212121

666666666

888888888

242424242424242424

232323232323232323

222222222

262626262626262626181818181818181818

181818181818181818

171717171717171717

171717171717171717

131313131313131313

131313131313131313

777777777

777777777

Scale 1:20,000

500 0 500 m

Anglesea Vegetation AssessmentMark Trengrove, January 2003

Vegetation Communities

Coastal Complex

Heathland

Moonah Woodland

Pine Plantation

Stringybark Woodland

Swamp Gum/Riparian Complex

STREET

HARVEY

PICKW

222222222222222222



11

RO

AD

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

BETLEIGH

STREET

RO

AD

ELIZAB

ETHPATO

N

STREET

ELLIMATTA

MANNA GUM

CLO

SE

STR

EET

STREET

LITTLE

RAM

SAY

STR

EET

MC

DO

UG

ALL

STREET

ALLE

NS

TR

EE

T

STREET

ALMIRA

GREAT

OCEAN

STREET

INVE

RLOCHY

CR

T

SC

OT

TS

TR

EE

T

SIM

MO

NS

WEBB

STR

EET

STREET

STREET

STREET

RO

AD

WILKINS

RO

AD

STREET

CAM

P

PA

RA

DE

MURCH

CRESCENT

EVAN

S

PURNELL

RO

AD

HEDLEY S

TREET

STREET

VALDA STREET

STREET

STREET

MC RORIE

STREET

BR

EA

RLE

YC

OU

RT

LU

BE

L

AV

EN

UE

WRAY

RO

AD

WALKER

DO

NA

LD

ROAD

CAM

ER

ON

GREAT OCEAN

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

GROVE

CA

MP

BIN

GLE

Y

PA

RA

DE

KENNETH

CAM

P

ST

RE

ET

BETLEIGH

ELIZABETH

ROAD

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

STREET

TO

NG

E

STR

EE

T

GREAT

OCEAN

ROAD

STREET

RO

AD

RIV

ER

RESER

VE

DIG

GE

RS

CR

T

BIN

GLE

Y

HALLAM HE

AT

HE

R

BO

N A

IR

MURRAY

PARKER

MINIFIE

MA

WS

ON

AV

EN

UE

PA

RA

DE

STREET

AVENUE

ARINYA

GABBA

CR

T

CR

ES

CE

NT

FERNALD

NOBLE

HOLMWOOD

AVENUE

WA

Y

AV

E

GARDINER

ROAD

STR

EE

T

STREET

AVENUE

STR

EE

T

FIRST

STREET

MC CONNELL CLOSE

INGRAM

AVENUE

ROAD

CRESCENT

PARINGA

BU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CRESCENT

STREET

STR

EE

T

JAC

KS

ON

BA

KE

RS

TR

EE

T

MILNER

PE

TE

R

FOSTER

STREET

WA

LLIS

GREAT OCEAN

CRES

STR

EE

T

HARVEY

CRT

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

ME

LB

A

FORREST

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

ST

RE

ET

EDWARDSTREET

SP

AR

RO

W

AVENUE

BA

NN

ISTE

R

MC MILLAN

AV

EN

UE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

NOBL

E

MC MILLAN

STR

EE

TC

HA

RLE

S

STR

EE

TG

EO

RG

E

CRT

COURT

RUSSELL

CHATSWOOD

FRASER

BREN

TLAU

REN

STREE

T

ROAD

WEI

R

RO

AD

GO

LF L

INK

S

LEWIS

CARRAWE

CRT

COURT

STREET

MURRAY

STREET

GO

LF

LIN

KS

RO

AD

FR

AS

ER

AV

EN

UE

DRIVE

AVENUE

AVEN

UE

HILLCREST

FRASER

TW

ELF

TH

AV

EN

UEO

`DO

NO

HU

E

ROAD

AVENUE

EIG

HT

H

AVENUE

PARADE

AVENUE

STREET

O`D

ON

OH

UE

RO

AD

NOBLE

SECOND

HARVEY

TENTH

SEVEN

TH

AVENUE

MELBA

RO

AD

SIXTH

FOURTH

AVENUE

FIF

TH

BELTON

MC MAHON

STREET

ST

RE

ET

BIRKDALE

DR

IVE

AVENUE

FA

IRW

AY

CLOSE

FIF

TH

GREAT O

CEAN

ELEVENTH

NIBLICK

BE

LTO

N

BIRDIE

AVENUE

BO

GIE

CR

T

AVENUE

STREET

PA

R

STREET

STREET

HARVEY

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

COURT

DRIVE

EAGLE

MC MAHON

AV

EN

UE

PARKER

FR

ED

ER

ICK

STR

EE

TC

RA

IGD

AR

RO

CH

GR

EE

VE

S

STR

EE

T

STREET

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

BRONWYNS

HARVEY

PA

RA

DE

STREET

THIRD

AVENUE

FIFT

HTHIRD AVENUE

NINTH

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

GREA

T O

CEA

N

EIG

HT

H

SIXTH

AVENUE

SEVENTH

ME

LB

A

PA

RA

DE

HYLAND

171717171717171717

171717171717171717111111111

101010101010101010

141414141414141414191919191919191919

111111111111111111212121212121212121

131313131313131313

252525252525252525

999999999

202020202020202020

777777777

161616161616161616

444444444

333333333

151515151515151515

121212121212121212

555555555

666666666

888888888

242424242424242424

232323232323232323

222222222

262626262626262626181818181818181818

181818181818181818

171717171717171717

131313131313131313 777777777

777777777

1, 2, 31, 2, 31, 2, 31, 2, 31, 2, 31, 2, 31, 2, 31, 2, 31, 2, 3

444444444

5, 65, 65, 65, 65, 65, 65, 65, 65, 6

8888888889, 109, 109, 109, 109, 109, 109, 109, 109, 10

111111111111111111

121212121212121212

131313131313131313

141414141414141414

414141414141414141404040404040404040

17, 1817, 1817, 1817, 1817, 1817, 1817, 1817, 1817, 18191919191919191919

202020202020202020

27, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 3127, 28, 29, 30, 31

23, 24, 2523, 24, 2523, 24, 2523, 24, 2523, 24, 2523, 24, 2523, 24, 2523, 24, 2523, 24, 25262626262626262626

21, 2221, 2221, 2221, 2221, 2221, 2221, 2221, 2221, 22

323232323232323232

36, 37, 3836, 37, 3836, 37, 3836, 37, 3836, 37, 3836, 37, 3836, 37, 3836, 37, 3836, 37, 38353535353535353535

33, 3433, 3433, 3433, 3433, 3433, 3433, 3433, 3433, 34393939393939393939

444444444444444444

424242424242424242434343434343434343

45, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 4845, 46, 47, 48

Scale 1:20,000

500 0 500 m

Anglesea Vegetation AssessmentMark Trengrove, January 2003

Vegetation Assessment Sites

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526

Photographic Locations

23, 24


_________________________________________________________________________________________________22

Coastal Moonah WoodlandOpen to closed woodland orshrubland dominated by Moonah.Associated shrubs include:• Boobialla• Coast Rice-flowerUnderstorey consists of succulentshrubs and climbers such as:• Sea-berry Saltbush• Bower Spinach• Moss beds

• Distribution confined to coastal fringe and to the lowerreaches of the Anglesea River banks and flood plain.

• This vegetation is a listed community under Schedule 2 of theState Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988). As such allremnants of this community are of conservation significance.

• Sites at Anglesea River reserve adjoining the foreshorecaravan park (ref 15) and within the foreshore reserve southof Pt Roadknight (where it occurs as part of Coastal Complex)are High (state) conservation significance.

• The area of Melba Parade south of Great Ocean Road (ref16) is of Moderate (regional) conservation significance.

• The Foreshore caravan park (ref 17) and areas of private landopposite the River fronting Great Ocean Road and CameronRoad (ref 17) are of Low (local) conservation significance.

Coastal ComplexA complex of vegetation typesassociated with the coastal fringe.It consists of a variety ofvegetation communities including:• Coastal Heathland• Dune Shrubland• Coastal Moonah Woodland

• Distribution is limited to crown land in the foreshore areas.• The majority of the vegetation is relatively intact and is of

High (state) conservation significance.

Source: Mark Trengove 2002 – Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study – Vegetation Report

Key Conclusions Arising from the Mark Trengove’s Vegetation Assessment

1. The vegetation of highest conservationvalue is mainly in Council or Crown landreserves including Edna Bowman,Coogoorah Park, Kuaka Dorla, CarraweCrt/ Parringa Crescent, foreshore and riverbank reserves, and land north ofInverlochy Street. This can be attributedto lower levels of disturbance from humanactivities compared to residentiallydeveloped land.

2. The majority of the residential areacontains vegetation from the ‘MessmateStringybark Woodland’ community, withthe quality varying from Low to Moderate.The western part of Anglesea referencedas sites 22 and 23 has regionalconservational value, having a more intactindigenous tree canopy and intactunderstorey albeit with a mix of indigenousand exotic plants. This corresponds withlarger lot sizes in those areas. Theremaining areas have a less intact treecanopy and higher degree of exoticunderstorey. The variation in canopycover is evident from the aerialphotography (refer Map 3 earlier in thereport).

Elizabeth Street Flora Reserve

Messmate Stringybark Woodland


_________________________________________________________________________________________________23

3. There are three precincts of significantvegetation on private land (ref 16 and 17),each of which are from the ‘CoastalMoonah Woodland’ community which islisted under the Flora and FaunaGuarantee Act 1988. The area adjoiningMelba Parade south of Great Ocean Road(ref 16) is rated as Moderate conservationsignificance, with the narrow bandsfronting Great Ocean Road opposite theriver and Cameron Road (ref 17)considered to be of Low conservationsignificance in relative terms due to higherlevels of disturbance.

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No. 141 states that the Coastal MoonahWoodland community: “has a restricted distribution in the state due to the reliance on soil typeand coastal influences, and is in a demonstratable state of decline which is likely to result in itsextinction”.

The Action Statement acknowledges:

• The significant loss of the community due to residential development, and that it is likely tocontinue under current planning arrangements.

• That residential development often results in the retention of a proportion of the largeshrub and tree components of the community, but almost total loss of the smaller shruband ground layer components. Regeneration of the taller components (except CoastalTea-tree) is rare within residential areas.

• The existence of a number of vulnerable and endangered flora and fauna species foundwithin the vegetation community, and that conservation of the Moonah Woodland haspotential to significantly contribute to the conservation of these taxa.

• Management actions include ensuring that significant remnants of the Moonah Woodlandare protected from inappropriate development through the application of local PlanningSchemes (ie the Environmental Significance Overlay).

4. Isolated sites on private land such as the Lutheran Camp (ref 3), and land north of FraserAvenue/Golf Club (ref 21) are identified as being High conservation value, as well as public landzoned Environmental Rural north and east of Inverlochy Street which is part occupied by theSport and Recreation Camp (ref 2). Future development/ subdivision of these sites couldcompromise this value. In respect of the land north of Fraser Avenue, the Council has previouslyresolved to rezone this land to Environmental Rural in recognition of its environmentalsignificance. This resolution is affirmed by this Study. A portion of the Crown land immediatelyeast of Inverlochy Street was zoned Industrial 3 when the new format planning scheme wasintroduced, but has not undergone an environmental assessment. The suitability of this land forfuture industrial development should be separately investigated due to the likely environmentalimpacts, with potential for rezoning to Public Conservation and Recreation Zone (PCRZ). Theadjoining land including the Sport and Recreation Camp should be rezoned from EnvironmentalRural to a mix of PCRZ and Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to reflect its Crown landstatus and the zoning of other Crown land in the immediate environs.

State Native Vegetation Framework

‘Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework – A Framework for Action’ (DSE, 2002) establishes a broadframework to achieve a Net Gain in extent and quality of native vegetation, and recognises thatregional priorities will be needed to address the different landscape, biodiversity and land and waterproblems in different regions. The pending Corangamite Regional Native Vegetation Plan will setpriorities for the catchment but has not yet been released.

Art Gallery on Great Ocean Road – sited amidst Moonahvegetation


_________________________________________________________________________________________________24

The Native Vegetation Framework establishes a three step process in applying the concept of NetGain when considering on-ground proposals to clear native vegetation as follows:

1. Avoid adverse impacts, particularly through vegetation clearance.

2. If impacts cannot be avoided, minimise impacts through appropriate consideration in planningprocesses and expert input to project design or management.

3. Identify appropriate off-set options.

The implication of this Framework is that greater emphasis is placed at a State level on the protectionand enhancement of existing native vegetation, both in extent and quality, and that where vegetationis to be removed for residential development in the coastal towns such as Anglesea, a process existsfor determining requirements for planting of replacement vegetation, with emphasis given to use ofspecies that would have existed on a site prior to 1750ad.

Recommendations

1. Apply an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) to parts of the Coastal Moonah Woodlandmapped on sites 16 and 17 to protect both the canopy and ground level vegetation from theimpacts of development and site disturbance. The ESO is not warranted over all of the mappedsites as the level of intact vegetation cover varies considerably.

2. Rezone the triangle of privately owned land north of Fraser Avenue at the north-west corner toEnvironmental Rural, recognising its High conservation value (this corresponds with outcomesof the ‘Review of Residential Land Supply and Population Growth in Anglesea 2001’).

3. Conduct a detailed investigation of whether land in the Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) east ofInverlochy Street should be rezoned to Public Conservation and Resource Zone to reflect itsenvironmental significance.

4. Facilitate a range of educative mechanisms to encourage the:

� Removal of environmental weeds from private land.

� Planting of indigenous species on private land.

� Appropriate balance between “tidying up” areas of remnant vegetation for fire protectionpurposes and promoting indigenous vegetation.

� Adoption of land management techniques that protect and enhance the environmentalvalues of adjoining nature reserves and/or crown land (links should be made to anyrelevant Nature Reserve Management Plan that has been adopted).

A new resident information kit which includes the Shire’s Environmental Weeds Booklet andIndigenous Plant List is suggested, along with use of the Shire web site to communicate thesemessages. Council could consider holding regular forums in the community to raise awarenesslevels and utilise existing community networks such as Angair, Anglesea NEIP and theCommunity House. Education of land owners ultimately has far greater potential to assist in theachievement of the objectives raised in this Study than reliance on regulatory mechanisms.

5. Review wording of planning scheme overlay/policies to ensure that:

� Use of environmental weeds in landscape plans is avoided, and removal of such weeds isexempt from planning permit requirements.

� Indigenous plants listed in the ‘Indigenous Planting Guide’ (2003) are used in landscapeplans.

� When new development occurs on sites of low vegetation cover, new indigenousvegetation is planted to increase the overall vegetation cover.

� Building footprints are limited in order to minimise the impacts on indigenous vegetation.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________25

� Lots are maintained at a size that enables retention of indigenous vegetation aroundbuildings.

� Buildings and associated activities are sited where they would have least impact onindigenous vegetation.

� The Coastal Moonah Woodland vegetation community is given maximum extra protectionfrom residential development/activities.

� Subdivision and medium density development on sites adjoining Crown land or Councilreserves has no adverse impact on the environmental values of that land.

� Removal of Grass-trees requires a planning permit.

� The objective of ‘net gain’ is specified, with a ratio for planting of new indigenousvegetation to replace native vegetation being removed.

� The objective of vegetation retention is foremost over other objectives in the Scheme.

6. Consider drafting a local law to control the planting of environmental weeds on all landirrespective of whether plans are required to be approved for development. A local law haspotential to be an effective mechanism for control of weeds, but would require substantialresourcing in the early years of introduction for education and enforcement.

The outcomes of this assessment are further assessed in Chapter 7.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________26

6. Current Planning ControlsThe Surf Coast Shire introduced a new planning scheme in 2000, based on the Victoria PlanningProvisions (VPPs). A Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) was applied to most of the town, together with aSignificant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (SLO2) which included native vegetation removal anddevelopment controls which in part had not existed previously. Policies on township growth andresidential development were summarised and incorporated in the Scheme as a Municipal StrategicStatement (MSS). These controls are shown on Maps 8 and 9.

The following is a summary of controls in the Planning Scheme that have relevance to land use anddevelopment in Anglesea:

State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

The SPPF includes state policy to which all local planning provisions must conform. It encourages:• Consolidation of existing urban areas whilst respecting neighbourhood character.• Protection and enhancement of coastal landscapes, and states that land use planning should be

consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002.• High quality urban design and architecture that reflects the particular characteristics of a locality,

and states that urban design policies and frameworks should be emphasised for key localities.• The protection of areas of environmental significance and refers to consideration of a range of

state and national environment strategies, including ‘Action Statements’ under the Flora andFauna Guarantee Act 1988. It states that decision making by Councils should assist theconservation of the habitats of threatened and endangered species and communities as identifiedunder the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, as well as addressing potentially threateningprocesses.

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The LPPF section of the Scheme includes the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and a number oflocal policies. Those that are relevant to Anglesea are described below.

Anglesea Strategy (Clause 21.12)

This Strategy is a summary of the draft 1997 Anglesea Structure Plan, and notes the limited capacityof the town to expand and accommodate future population growth due to its abuttal to the ocean andenvironmentally sensitive areas. The Strategy makes the following references to Anglesea’s coastalcharacter:

“Anglesea has a unique residential character typified by a range of densities (often on quitesteep slopes) and a significant cover of remnant native vegetation. This has been retained orenhanced through the planting of indigenous vegetation, with many owners choosing post andwire fencing or no fences at all to maintain the natural character of the area. These factorscombined with the fact that many dwellings are set back and specifically designed to beunobtrusive, give the town its special character.

Early patterns of subdivision and street design have also determined much of the town’scharacter and identity. Road reservations have generally retained their natural vegetation withmany streets still unconstructed. Where possible road construction should include narrowpavements to maintain the natural aspect of the area.

As the limited supply of allotments dwindles, Anglesea will come under increasing pressure tocater for ongoing residential demand. In dealing with this pressure it will be important not tolose sight of the reasons for the attractiveness and appeal of the town. Detailed residentialguidelines will be needed to ensure that this character is maintained in future development.These will include density controls with different precincts accommodating a range of densities

24/6/2003

SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES Cont...PUBLIC LAND ZONES Cont...RURAL ZONES

INDUSTRIAL ZONES

BUSINESS ZONES

PUBLIC LAND ZONES

SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES

COMMONWEALTH LAND

RESIDENTIAL ZONES

Residential 1 Zone

Township Zone

Low Density Residential Zone

Industrial 1 Zone

Industrial 3 Zone

Business 1 Zone

Rural Zone

Rural Living Zone

Environmental Rural Zone

Public Park & Recreation Zone

Road Zone Category 1

Public Conservation & Resource Zone

Road Zone Category 2

Public Use Zone Service & Utility

Public Use Zone Transport

Public Use Zone Health & Community

Public Use Zone Cemetery/Crematorium

Public Use Zone Local Government

Comprehensive Development Zone 2

Comprehensive Development Zone 1

Special Use Zone 1

Special Use Zone 3

Special Use Zone 2

Special Use Zone 4

Special Use Zone 5

Commonwealth Land Not Controlled

By Planning Scheme

Special Use Zone 6

R1Z

B1Z

TZ

IN1Z

IN3Z

LDRZ

RDZ2

RDZ1

PPRZ

RLZ

ERZ

RUZ

CDZ2

CDZ1

PUZ6

PUZ5

PUZ4

PUZ3

PUZ1

CA

SUZ6

SUZ5

SUZ4

SUZ3

SUZ2

SUZ1

PCRZ



RO

AD

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

BETLEIGH

STREET

RO

AD

ELIZAB

ETH P

ATO

NSTR

EET

ELLIMATTA

MANNA GUM

CLO

SE

STR

EET

STREET

LITTLE

RAM

SAY

STR

EET

MC

DO

UG

ALL

STREET

ALLE

NS

TR

EE

T

STREET

ALMIRA

GREAT

OCEAN

STREET

INVE

RLOCHY C

RT

SC

OT

TS

TR

EE

TS

IMM

ON

S

WEBB

STR

EET

STREET

STREET

STREET

RO

AD

WILKINS

RO

AD

STREET

CAM

P

PA

RA

DE

MURCH

CRESCENT

EVAN

S

PURNELL

RO

AD

HEDLEY S

TREET

STREET

VALDASTREET

STREET

STREET

MC RORIE

STREET

BR

EA

RLE

YC

OU

RT

LU

BE

L

AV

EN

UE

WRAY

RO

AD

WALKER DO

NA

LD

ROAD

CAM

ER

ON

GREAT OCEAN

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

GROVE

CA

MP

BIN

GLE

Y

PA

RA

DE

KENNETH

CAM

P

ST

RE

ET

BETLEIGH

ELIZABETH

ROAD

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

STREET

TO

NG

E

STR

EE

T

GREAT

OCEAN

ROAD

STREET

RO

AD

RIV

ER

RESER

VE

DIG

GE

RS

CR

T

BIN

GLE

Y

HALLAM

HE

AT

HE

R

BO

N A

IR

MURRAY

PARKER

MINIFIE

MA

WS

ON

AV

EN

UE

PA

RA

DE

STREET

AVENUE

ARINYA

GA

BB

AC

RT

CR

ES

CE

NT

FERNALD

NOBLE

HOLMWOOD

AVENUE

LO

RE

TT

AS

WA

Y

AV

E GARDINER

ROAD

STR

EE

T

STREET

AVENUE

STR

EE

T

FIRST

STREET

MC CONNELLCLOSE

INGRAM

AVENUE

ROAD

CRESCENT

PARINGA

BU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CRESCENT

STREET

STR

EE

T

JAC

KS

ON

BA

KE

RS

TR

EE

T

MILNER

PE

TE

R

FOSTERSTREET

WA

LLIS

GREAT OCEAN

CRES

STR

EE

T

HARVEY

CRT

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

ME

LB

A

FORREST

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

ST

RE

ET

EDWARD

STREET

SP

AR

RO

W

AVENUE

BA

NN

ISTE

R

MC MILLAN

AV

EN

UE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

NOBL

E

MC MILLAN

STR

EE

T

CH

AR

LES

STR

EE

T

GEO

RG

E

CRT

COURT

RUSSELL

CHATSWOOD

FRASER

BREN

TLAU

REN

STREE

T

ROAD

WEI

R

RO

AD

GO

LF L

INK

S

LEWIS

CARRAWE CRT

COURT

STREET

MURRAY

STREET

GO

LF

LIN

KS

RO

AD

FR

AS

ER

AV

EN

UE

DRIVE

AVENUE

AVEN

UE

HILLCREST

FRASER

TW

ELF

TH

AV

EN

UE

O`D

ON

OH

UE

ROAD

AVENUE

EIG

HT

H

AVENUE

PARADE

AVENUE

STREET

O`D

ON

OH

UE

RO

AD

NOBLE

SECOND

HARVEY

TENTH

SEVEN

TH

AVENUE

MELBA

RO

AD

SIXTH

FOURTH

AVENUE

FIF

TH

BELTON

MC MAHON

STREET

ST

RE

ET

BIRKDALE

DR

IVE

AVENUE

FA

IRW

AY

CLOSE

FIF

TH

GREAT O

CEAN

ELEVENTH

NIBLICK

BE

LTO

N

BIRDIE

AVENUE

BO

GIE

CR

T

AVENUE

STREET

PA

R

STREET

STREET

HARVEY

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

COURT

DRIVE

EAGLE

MC MAHON

AV

EN

UE

PARKER

FR

ED

ER

ICK

STR

EE

TC

RA

IGD

AR

RO

CH

GR

EE

VE

S

STR

EE

TSTREET

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

BRONWYNS

HARVEY

PA

RA

DE

STREET

THIRD

AVENUE

FIFT

HTHIRD AVENUE

NINTH

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

GREA

T O

CEA

N

EIG

HT

H

SIXTH

AVENUE

SEVENTH

ME

LB

A

PA

RA

DE

HYLAND

CACACACACACACACACA

SUZ5SUZ5SUZ5SUZ5SUZ5SUZ5SUZ5SUZ5SUZ5

PUZ6PUZ6PUZ6PUZ6PUZ6PUZ6PUZ6PUZ6PUZ6

ERZERZERZERZERZERZERZERZERZ



IN3ZIN3ZIN3ZIN3ZIN3ZIN3ZIN3ZIN3ZIN3Z

PCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZ


PCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZPCRZ


PPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZ PPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZ

PPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZPPRZ










R1ZR1ZR1ZR1ZR1ZR1ZR1ZR1ZR1Z




B1ZB1ZB1ZB1ZB1ZB1ZB1ZB1ZB1Z





Scale 1:15,000

500 0 500 m

Surf Coast Planning Scheme - ZonesAnglesea

24/6/2003



RO

AD

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

BETLEIGH

STREET

RO

AD

ELIZAB

ETH P

ATO

NSTR

EET

ELLIMATTA

MANNA GUM

CLO

SE

STR

EET

STREET

LITTLE

RAM

SAY

STR

EET

MC

DO

UG

ALL

STREET

ALLE

NS

TR

EE

T

STREET

ALMIRA

GREAT

OCEAN

STREET

INVE

RLOCHY C

RT

SC

OT

TS

TR

EE

TS

IMM

ON

S

WEBB

STR

EET

STREET

STREET

STREET

RO

AD

WILKINS

RO

AD

STREET

CAM

P

PA

RA

DE

MURCH

CRESCENT

EVAN

S

PURNELL

RO

AD

HEDLEY S

TREET

STREET

VALDASTREET

STREET

STREET

MC RORIE

STREET

BR

EA

RLE

YC

OU

RT

LU

BE

L

AV

EN

UE

WRAY

RO

AD

WALKER DO

NA

LD

ROAD

CAM

ER

ON

GREAT OCEAN

GR

EA

T O

CE

AN

GROVE

CA

MP

BIN

GLE

Y

PA

RA

DE

KENNETH

CAM

P

ST

RE

ET

BETLEIGH

ELIZABETH

ROAD

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

STREET

TO

NG

E

STR

EE

T

GREAT

OCEAN

ROAD

STREET

RO

AD

RIV

ER

RESER

VE

DIG

GE

RS

CR

T

BIN

GLE

Y

HALLAM

HE

AT

HE

R

BO

N A

IR

MURRAY

PARKER

MINIFIE

MA

WS

ON

AV

EN

UE

PA

RA

DE

STREET

AVENUE

ARINYA

GA

BB

AC

RT

CR

ES

CE

NT

FERNALD

NOBLE

HOLMWOOD

AVENUE

LO

RE

TT

AS

WA

Y

AV

E GARDINER

ROAD

STR

EE

T

STREET

AVENUE

STR

EE

T

FIRST

STREET

MC CONNELLCLOSE

INGRAM

AVENUE

ROAD

CRESCENT

PARINGA

BU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CRESCENT

STREET

STR

EE

T

JAC

KS

ON

BA

KE

RS

TR

EE

T

MILNER

PE

TE

R

FOSTERSTREET

WA

LLIS

GREAT OCEAN

CRES

STR

EE

T

HARVEY

CRT

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

ME

LB

A

FORREST

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

ST

RE

ET

EDWARD

STREET

SP

AR

RO

W

AVENUE

BA

NN

ISTE

R

MC MILLAN

AV

EN

UE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

NOBL

E

MC MILLAN

STR

EE

T

CH

AR

LES

STR

EE

T

GEO

RG

E

CRT

COURT

RUSSELL

CHATSWOOD

FRASER

BREN

TLAU

REN

STREE

T

ROAD

WEI

R

RO

AD

GO

LF L

INK

S

LEWIS

CARRAWE CRT

COURT

STREET

MURRAY

STREET

GO

LF

LIN

KS

RO

AD

FR

AS

ER

AV

EN

UE

DRIVE

AVENUE

AVEN

UE

HILLCREST

FRASER

TW

ELF

TH

AV

EN

UE

O`D

ON

OH

UE

ROAD

AVENUE

EIG

HT

H

AVENUE

PARADE

AVENUE

STREET

O`D

ON

OH

UE

RO

AD

NOBLE

SECOND

HARVEY

TENTH

SEVEN

TH

AVENUE

MELBA

RO

AD

SIXTH

FOURTH

AVENUE

FIF

TH

BELTON

MC MAHON

STREET

ST

RE

ET

BIRKDALE

DR

IVE

AVENUE

FA

IRW

AY

CLOSE

FIF

TH

GREAT O

CEAN

ELEVENTH

NIBLICK

BE

LTO

N

BIRDIE

AVENUE

BO

GIE

CR

T

AVENUE

STREET

PA

R

STREET

STREET

HARVEY

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

COURT

DRIVE

EAGLE

MC MAHON

AV

EN

UE

PARKER

FR

ED

ER

ICK

STR

EE

TC

RA

IGD

AR

RO

CH

GR

EE

VE

S

STR

EE

T

STREET

AV

EN

UE

AVENUE

AVENUE

AVENUE

BRONWYNS

HARVEY

PA

RA

DE

STREET

THIRD

AVENUE

FIFT

HTHIRD AVENUE

NINTH

AVENUE

RO

AD

AVENUE

GREA

T O

CEA

N

EIG

HT

H

SIXTH

AVENUE

SEVENTH

ME

LB

A

PA

RA

DE

HYLAND

Scale 1:15,000

500 0 500 m

Surf Coast Planning Scheme - OverlaysAnglesea

Legend

Significant Landscape Overlay

Vegetation Protection Overlay

Design & Development Overlay

Wildfire Management Overlay


_________________________________________________________________________________________________27

at appropriate locations. This will provide certainty in expectations both for the community andthe development industry.”

The following strategies are listed to achieve these objectives:

• “Identify the supply and demand for residential land in Anglesea and assess the potential toexpand the town boundaries to accommodate additional residential development.

• Contain future development within existing town boundaries until such time as the potential toexpand these boundaries is assessed.

• Encourage infill and medium density development adjacent and in close proximity to the towncentre and community facilities.

• Ensure other medium density housing is provided in a dispersed manner throughout the town tomaintain the low density character of the township.

• Ensure future subdivision and development is sympathetic to environmental issues by avoidingbroad scale clearing in the subdivision development phase. Developers will also be encouragedto undertake minimum clearing required for road, drainage and services.

• Apply a range of densities that will assist to maintain existing remnant tree canopies and retainthe relatively non urban character of the town.”

The Strategy further acknowledges that Anglesea is one of the few towns in the Shire to have beenable to retain much of the original vegetation within its boundaries, and that it is renowned for itsvarieties of flora, which include many rare orchid species. A strategy is to ensure that representativeareas of native vegetation and habitat are included in planning for future subdivision and development.

The current Study provides a basis upon which to review these strategies.

Environment Strategy (MSS)

This Strategy recognises that the decline and fragmentation of indigenous vegetation and loss ofbiodiversity is a major environmental issue in the Shire, and that this decline should be reversed. Itstates that the design of new subdivisions should take into account the protection, conservation andmanagement of natural heritage features, including remnant indigenous vegetation, old trees,wetlands and streams. It also highlights the threat to native flora and fauna posed by environmentalweeds, and that the planting of pest plants, particularly environmental weeds, should be activelydiscouraged.

Coastal Development Policy

This policy applies to all land zoned Residential 1 in Anglesea, and is the primary statutory tool forguidance on the use of discretion when determining planning permit applications for residentialdevelopment. It covers the following key elements:

• Development densities and subdivision lot size

• Vegetation cover

• Building scale, including siting, height, site coverage, size and view sharing.

• Building design.

• Fences.

Surf Coast Design (Style) and Colours Policy

This policy encourages the use of architectural designs, features and colours in new buildings thatcomplements the character of the coastal towns, avoiding typical urban forms usually found in built-upareas. The policy includes factors to be taken into account when assessing the colour schemes ofexternal materials.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________28

Streetscape and Landscape Policy

This policy sets out requirements for landscape plans to be submitted with development applicationsof various types, as well as discouraging planting of environmental weeds, and requiring the paymentof a bond to ensure the retention of significant vegetation in some circumstances.

Zones and Overlays

Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and Significant Landscape Overlay 2 (SLO2)

The majority of residential land within the town is zoned R1Z with a Significant Landscape Overlay –Schedule 2 (SLO2). A permit is generally required for a residential development, except where thefollowing apply:

• The building height is less than 5m.

• The site coverage of buildings is less than 200m² or 35% of the site area, whichever is the lesser.

• The lot has an area exceeding 450m².

• There is a change in ground level of more than 2m resulting from cut or fill.

• The building is not relocated from another place.

Approval is required for external colours and materials, and controls apply to front and side boundaryfences. A permit is required for removal of native vegetation.

Where a permit is required, proposals must comply with the performance standards of Clauses 54, 55and 56 of the Planning Scheme (ResCode).

Special Use Zone (SUZ)

Residential land fronting the western side of O’Donohue’s Road and the southern side of HarveyStreet are zoned Special Use - Schedule 3 (SU3Z). The zone is more restrictive than the R1Z,reflecting the environmental sensitivity of the land. A Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 2(VPO2) applies to the land and requires a permit to remove, lop or destroy native vegetation.Removal of native vegetation outside of habitation envelopes is not permitted except where necessaryfor accessways, fire protection, infrastructure and fencing.

Two small quasi-commercial areas at ‘Four Kings Corner’ on the Great Ocean Road and at DiggersParade are zoned Special Use – Schedule 5 (SU5Z). The zone encourages a range of tourist relateduses such as accommodation and ‘tourist retailing’. In both cases there is vacant land yet to bedeveloped which has potential to influence the visual appearance of the precincts.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________29

7. Review of Planning Controls

The Study has identified a range of features which combine to create a low density, vegetated, non-urban character across Anglesea. This supports current references to character in the AngleseaStrategy of the MSS, however it has become evident that if this character is to be maintained andenhanced into the future, modifications need to be made to current planning controls, in particular:• Reduced densities for multi-dwelling developments and increased minimum lot sizes for

subdivision, particularly in the eastern part of Anglesea.• Smaller building footprints and extent of hard surface areas.• Reduced building bulk• Less formal front and side boundary fencing.

The effect of these changes, particularly as they relate to reduced opportunities for in-fill subdivisionand medium density development, will be to reduce the capacity of the town to accommodate futurepopulation increase. However, the ‘Review of Residential Land Supply and Population growth inAnglesea 2001’ projected that on the basis of current town boundaries and residential policyprovisions, the supply of vacant residential lots would be exhausted by 2010 (or by 2008 in a highgrowth scenario). Therefore any impact of the proposed changes on the long term populationpotential for Anglesea is relatively marginal.

This outcome is consistent with the ‘Strategic Framework’ of the MSS (Clause 21.04 –3) whichacknowledges the constrained capacity of the smaller coastal towns such as Aireys Inlet/Fairhaven,Lorne and Anglesea to accommodate population growth, stating:

“Anglesea is a small coastal township attracting increasing numbers of residents committed tomaintaining a balance between lifestyle development and conservation of the environment. It isa popular holiday resort for families and young people and has a unique residential characterinfluenced by a variety of densities and an extensive tree canopy of native vegetation.

The townships of Aireys Inlet, Fairhaven, Moggs Creek and Eastern View are contained bydense bushland and spectacular coastline, and are a popular destination for surfers andtourists, with attractions including the Split Point Lighthouse and Angahook-Lorne State Park.The townships are characterised by their relative lack of urbanisation. Future development willbe strictly limited due to the environmental sensitivity of the area, the high level of fire risk andthe need to prevent development spreading along the Great Ocean Road.

These townships are relatively small (populations of less than 3000 people), with a largeproportion of non-permanent residents (around 65%). The number of permanent residents isslowly increasing, however the towns are still seen as attractive holiday destinations withresidents and visitors seeking a place of escape from the stresses of urban living, and a senseof wellbeing though their enjoyment of the natural environment. The towns are constrained intheir capacity to accommodate increased population growth because of the environmentalsensitivity of their surrounding hinterlands and because residents are seeking to maintain thelow density coastal character of the towns. It will be important to maintain the non-urbancharacter of the townships (such as their coastal vegetation and informal road networks) and theenvironmental values of their surrounding bushland, estuaries and foreshore areas.”

This clause refers to Torquay/Jan Juc and Winchelsea as growth nodes, and states as a KeyObjective that the majority of coastal population growth will be concentrated in designated growthcorridors to the north and west of Torquay. It is therefore considered that any reduced housingopportunities that may arise as a result of the current Study will be offset by those being created as adeliberate policy in Torquay/Jan Juc where there is unconstrained potential for urban growth,consistent with the overall policy for Housing and Settlement in the Municipal Strategic Statement ofthe Planning Scheme.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________30

It will also be consistent with the objectives of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002, which states thatdevelopment pressure will be directed away from sensitive areas (most of the coast) and managedwithin defined ‘activity nodes’ or ‘recreational nodes’. According to criteria defined at P42 of theStrategy, Anglesea is considered a small coastal township with no significant planned populationgrowth, as compared to a coastal city/town such as Torquay which has a significant population bycomparison, and capacity to sustainably support further development. The Strategy states that thescale and intensity of development in smaller coastal townships should be limited to that appropriateto a township in a non-urban environment.

Notwithstanding reduced capacity for subdivision of residential allotments, it is proposed that somescope be provided for marginally higher densities in a small area around the main shopping centreand community facilities subject to limited building floor area and achievement of landscape outcomes.There will also still be longer term potential for future residential development of large sites within thetown which are currently occupied by other uses. Examples are indicated at Figure 14 of the ‘Reviewof Residential Land Supply and Population growth in Anglesea 2001’, including Camp Wilkin, Narambiand Driftwood Caravan Parks, the primary school and Australian Lutheran Youth Camp. These sitescould yield significant numbers of additional lots due to their size, depending on site specificenvironmental constraints. This is in addition to opportunities for higher densities of development onvacant land at Diggers Parade and ‘Four Kings’ which is zoned SUZ5.

The following is a detailed examination of changes recommended to the Planning Scheme provisions.

Need for Overlays

This Study has identified a number of elements which are important to maintenance and enhancementof the town’s largely native vegetation cover and low density built environment. These includevegetation cover, building size, articulation and height, fencing, site coverage and views.

The provisions of the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z), and those subsequently at Clauses 54 and 55 of theScheme do not provide the mechanisms required to control all of these elements. In particular, theSchedule to the R1Z applies any variations to Clauses 54 and 55 across all parts of the Shire and istherefore inappropriate. The application of overlay(s) that control buildings and works and vegetationremoval are therefore necessary to ensure that future development is compatible with and reinforcesvalued aspects of the town’s character.

Change in Structure of Controls

Overlays relevant to Anglesea in the current Planning Scheme are generic in nature (applying to areasof Torquay/Jan Juc, Anglesea and Aireys Inlet), and do not contain objectives, decision guidelines andperformance criteria that are specific to Anglesea. Further, there is a degree of complexity andrepetitiveness in the controls that was identified by John Keaney in his review of the MSS in 2002titled “Surf Coast Planning Scheme: Three Year Report”.

Keaney’s recommendation that the content of the Coastal Development Policy be collapsed into theoverlays is supported as it would have the dual effect of reinforcing the weight that should be given toprovisions currently in the Coastal Development Policy and streamline the controls for the user. It isfurther recommended that overlay schedules specific to Anglesea be created so that they can betargetted in the outcomes being sought in relation to preferred neighbourhood character. Thisapproach should be replicated in other coastal towns following completion of similar studies. There isalso an opportunity to delete provisions that are not strategically justified in the current Scheme.

Application of Overlays

The following table is an analysis of the different overlays which could be applied in Anglesea:

Overlay Advantage DisadvantageSignificantLandscape (SLO)

• Controls buildings and works• Controls removal of native

• Doesn’t include subdivisioncontrols at present.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________31

vegetation• Allows permit exemptions• Landscape focus

Design andDevelopment(DDO)

• Controls building and works andsubdivision

• Allows permit exemptions

• No vegetation control, thereforeadditional overlay required tocontrol this element.

• Lacks landscape focus of SLONeighbourhoodCharacter (NCO)

• Controls buildings and works• Controls removal of vegetation.

• Very few exemptions from permitrequirements – more restrictivethan necessary.

• Difficult to justify application.• Does not control vegetation <5m in

height or which has a trunkcircumference < 0.5m – thereforeapplies inadequate level of control.

VegetationProtection (VPO)

• Controls removal of nativevegetation.

• Does not control buildings andworks and subdivision – thereforeadditional overlay would benecessary.

EnvironmentalSignificance(ESO)

• Controls buildings and works• Controls removal of vegetation.• Useful for protection of Moonah

vegetation

• Lacks landscape focus, and is onlyapplied to areas where vegetationenvironmentally significant

The SLO currently applied to Anglesea is considered the most appropriate VPP tool to achieve thepreferred character outcome. It contains permit requirements for buildings and works with thecapacity for exemption of works for which permits are considered unnecessary. The SLO alsocontains a permit requirement for removal of native vegetation, which can also be subject toexemptions. With these controls, the Shire has the capacity to consider all of the landscape andenvironmental elements relevant to the character elements noted in Chapters 4 and 5 exceptsubdivision. The overlay does not contain a permit requirement for subdivision as is the case withsome other overlays, meaning that a new local policy will be required to guide decision making onsubdivision applications. Although preferable to consolidate all provisions in the overlay due to thestrong nexus between subdivision and landscape impacts, the use of both an SLO and local policy isthe preferred approach given the appropriateness of the purposes and decision guidelines in the SLOfor consideration of development applications. The State Government has been asked to make achange to the SLO in the VPPs, but has indicated it is not prepared to do so.

The alternate use of a DDO and VPO to regulate buildings and works and vegetation removal wouldprovide a satisfactory level of planning control for Anglesea, but is not recommended as it would addcomplexity which is minimised by utilising a single overlay, and would lack the ‘landscape’ focus of theSLO. The ESO is considered appropriate for application to specific sites where vegetation is of highconservation significance and warrants higher levels of protection that focus on the environmentalvalues (see discussion of Moonah vegetation below). Although there are areas of MessmateStringybark Woodland within the town identified as having Moderate or High conservation significance,with the exception of the Lutheran Camp on Betleigh Street these are public reserves and do notwarrant application of an overlay. Messmate Stringybark Woodland on privately owned land inAnglesea generally has only local or regional conservation significance due its past disturbance forhousing, and can be adequately protected by the provisions of the SLO.

The Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) is considered inappropriate as it has too few permitexemptions and the vegetation controls focus on larger trees only. If the NCO was applied inAnglesea, it would be more restrictive than necessary for control of buildings and works and affordinadequate control over the removal of native vegetation.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________32

Although desirable that residential controls be consistent across Anglesea, it is not proposed tochange the provisions affecting land south and west of O’Donohue’s Road zoned SUZ3. These weredrafted when the new format scheme was introduced to reflect the special sensitivities of the adjoiningheathland vegetation, and include prohibition of subdivision and more than one dwelling on a lot,provisions which would be lost or diluted by changing the zone to R1Z.

Significant Landscape Overlay

The Study has identified that the preferred character outcome for Anglesea is consistent across allprecincts, despite some definable differences in existing character between parts of the town. On thisbasis it is proposed that a new Schedule 3 to the SLO replace the existing SLO2 – refer Map 10. Acopy of the proposed overlay is attached at Appendix 7. This overlay contains:

• A ‘landscape statement of significance’ and landscape character objectives specific to Angleseawhich reflect the preferred character objectives identified in this Study.

• Similar buildings and works and native vegetation removal provisions to those currently in theSLO2, except varied to:

� Require a permit for any front fence other than one constructed of post and wire.� Delete the precinct map as it relates to fencing controls, and require a permit for all side

boundary fencing other than post and wire throughout the town.� Reduce the ‘permit trigger’ for site coverage for buildings to 150m².� Introduce a ‘permit trigger’ for exceeding 210m² site coverage of buildings and hard

surfaces.� Increase the lot size below which a permit is required from 450m² to 500m².� Reduce the “permit trigger” for cut and/or fill from 2m to 1m and add a permit requirement

where buildings are proposed within 3m of a native tree.� Insert minimum setbacks from a front and side boundary in limited circumstances (where

there is a gap in the ResCode provisions).� Exclude Grass Tree species from the permit exemptions for native vegetation removal.� Delete the clause requiring Plans for Approval to be submitted for materials and finishes

in circumstances where no planning permit is required for a development, and require apermit for use of zincalume and galvanised iron for roofing.

� Delete the permit requirement for buildings that have been relocated from another place.

• Performance criteria and policy relating to residential development that is currently contained inthe Coastal Development Policy. The following elements are varied:

� The maximum plot ratio for buildings is reduced below 0.5 based on a sliding scale.� The maximum site coverage for buildings, and buildings and hard surfaces is reduced

based on a sliding scale.� Development densities are modified, with retention of the existing 800m² in Precinct A and

an increase from 450m² to 550m² in Precinct B (600m² for corner lots). An increaseddensity is permissible within the central part of Anglesea subject to the building floor areanot exceeding 120m². There are changes to the way that density is calculated.

� Performance criteria for fencing, vegetation cover and building siting are strengthened.� Performance criteria relating to building height, site coverage and development density

are related back to the landscape character objectives identified in the Study.� Informal looking road surfaces are encouraged in new subdivisions.� The criteria for assessment of colours are modified – roofs are to be in subdued colours

and bold, strong or garish colours are to be avoided on external walls.� Tennis courts are discouraged – the current performance criteria are deleted.

PREPARED BY: STATUTORY SERVICES AND INFORMATION TEAMGeographical Information System

DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT

SURF COAST PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C16

Part of Planning Scheme Maps 33

LEGEND

Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 3SLO3

LOCAL PROVISION

7

ELEVENTH

MELBA

TW

EL

VT

HA

V

TENTH

SEVENTH

O'D

ON

OH

UE

OCEAN

AV

SEVENTH

ROAD

AV

SEVENTH

AV

RD

O'D

ON

OH

UE

BRONWYNS

AV

AV

CT

FIRST

AV

RD

RD

SECOND

ME

LB

A

ROAD

AV

PD

E

RO

AD

EIG

HT

H

EIG

HT

H

PDE

RO

AD

ST

AV

ST

PICKWORTH

CT BELTON

MELBA

ELEVENTH

TENTH

SEVENTH

O'D

ON

OH

UE

FIF

TH

SIXTH

FIF

TH

RD

SIXTH

RD

RD

DR

NOBLE

DR

NOBLE

TW

EL

VT

HA

V

AV

OCEANPDE

THIRD

FOURTH

O'D

ON

OH

UE

THIRD

FOURTH

STST

RD

SECOND

AV

FIFT

H

ROAD

ROAD

AV

SEVENTH

AV

FIFT

H

ROAD

AVAV

NINTH

AV

NINTH

AV

AV

SP

AR

RO

WST

McMILLAN

AV

AV

ST

STST

EDWARDST

AV

PARKER

AV

HARVEY

ME

LB

A

PARKER

HARVEY

ME

LB

A

AV

AV

ME

LB

A

EIG

HT

H

EIG

HT

H

AV

AV

AV

AV

BRONWYNS

CT

AV

AV

AV

AV

PD

E

SEVENTH

AV

AV

AV

PD

E

CR

AIG

DA

RR

OC

H

ST

CR

AIG

DA

RR

OC

H

GR

EE

VE

SS

T

FR

ED

ER

ICK

GR

EE

VE

S

AV

ST

FIRST

RD

ST

FOREST

AV

FOREST

AV

CR

ST

ST

CR

WA

LLIS

WA

LLIS

PD

E

AVROAD

RO

AD

AV

AV

AV

BA

NN

ISTE

RA

V

BA

NN

ISTE

R

GREA

T O

CEAN

GREA

T O

CEAN

RO

AD

GARDINER

ST

RO

AD

GARDINERAV

ST

BACHLI

BACHLI

PICKWORTH

NIBLICK

NIBLICK

McMAHON

BIRDIE

McMAHON

BIRDIE

BE

LTO

N

AV

CT

BE

LTO

NST

AV

ST

BO

GIE

AV

EAGLE

CT

BO

GIE

AV

EAGLE

CT

PA

R

AV

ST

PA

R

DR

ST

AV

DR

FA

IRW

AY

ST

FA

IRW

AY

ST

BIRKDALECLM

cMAH

ON

BELTON

BIRKDALECLM

cMAH

ON

GO

LF

LIN

KS

FR

AS

ER

FR

AS

ER

GO

LF

LIN

KS

ST

EDWARD

AV

FR

ED

ER

ICK

ST

SP

AR

RO

WST

McMILLAN

CARRAWE

LEWIS

CT

GO

LF

LIN

KS

LEWIS

CTCARRAWE

GO

LF

LIN

KS

HYLAND

CHATSWOOD

CT

RUSSELL

HYLAND

AV

RUSSELL

CT

CHATSWOOD

AV

CLA

IRV

ILLE

CH

AR

LE

S

ST

NO

BLE

CLA

IRV

ILLE

CH

AR

LE

S

ST

NO

BLE

RD

GE

OR

GE

JAC

KS

ON

ST

NOBLE

RD

GE

OR

GE

ST

NOBLE

PARINGA

CT

CR

CTPARINGA

DRAV

AV

FRASER

MURRAY

BU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CR

MURRAY

CT

GA

BB

A

ARINYABU

TTE

RW

OR

TH

CR

GA

BB

A

CT

ARINYA

WEIR

CR

HILLCREST

AV

HOLMWOOD

MA

NS

ON

FERNALD

HOLMWOOD

MA

NS

ON

AV

FERNALD

RD

AV

CR

RD

AV

AV

CR

AV

DIG

GE

RS

ROAD

ST

AV

PD

E

ROAD

ST

a

River

BIN

GLE

Y

a

River

CR

RD

RO

AD

MURCH

RD

RO

AD

MURCH

CR

CA

MP

HE

AT

HE

R

CT

GV

AV

WRAY

PD

EC

AM

P

KENNETH

WILKINS

S T

BR

EA

RLE

YC

T

McRORIE

RD

Anglesea

ANGLESEAANGLESEAANGLESEAANGLESEAANGLESEAANGLESEAANGLESEAANGLESEAANGLESEA

RD

Anglesea

ELIZABETHLU

BE

L

ST

ALLE

NS

T

VALDAS T

ST

RD

S T

EVANS

PURNELL

ROAD

PURNELL

S T

EVANSC

AM

ERO

N

CAM

ERO

N

RD

ST

HEDLEY

RD

ST

HEDLEY

ST

ST

PATO

N

STBETLEIGH

LITTLE

ST

ST

ST

LITTLE

ST

ST

RAM

SAYST

RAM

SAY

ST

ST

SC

OT

T

S T

ST

ST

SC

OT

T

S T

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

JAC

KS

ON

ST

PETER

ST

PETER

BA

KE

R

ST

BA

KE

R

FOSTER

STFOSTER

AV

MINIFIE

MILN

ER

MURRAY

MINIFIE

MILN

ER

MURRAY

ST

PD

E

DIG

GE

RS

STST

ST

AV

AV

AV

AV

ST

BO

N A

IR

ST

BO

N A

IR

AV

ST

TO

NG

E

RO

AD

ST

TO

NG

E

RiverRiver

FRASER

RD

HILLCREST

DR

AV

RD

ST

McCONNELLCL

INGRAM

WEIR

ST

McCONNELLCL

INGRAM

BIN

GLE

Y

GV

CA

MP

WRAY

HALLAM

HE

AT

HE

R

CT

HALLAM

BR

EA

RLE

Y

CAM

P

KENNETH S T

CT

McRORIE

WALKERWALKER

AV

DO

NA

LD

ROAD

DO

NA

LD

ROAD

S T

RD

WILKINS

PD

E

ELIZABETH

ST

LU

BE

L

ST

BETLEIGHBETLEIGH

ALLE

NS

T

McD

OU

GA

LL

S T

McD

OU

GA

LL

S T

ST

STBETLEIGH

VALDA

ROAD

S T

GREA

T

OCE

AN

ALMIRAST

GREA

T

OCE

AN

ALMIRAST

WEBB

ST

ST

PATO

N

S T

ST

ST

WEBB

CT

SIM

MO

NS

INVERLOCHY

SIM

MO

NS

CT

INVERLOCHY

SLO3SLO3SLO3SLO3SLO3SLO3SLO3SLO3SLO3




_________________________________________________________________________________________________33

Table 2 reviews each of the character elements identified in Chapter 4, and contains details ofmodifications recommended to the planning controls.

Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO)

It is proposed to apply an ESO to private land atthe southern edge of Pt Roadknight and twonarrow bands of private land fronting CameronRoad and Great Ocean Road mapped by MarkTrengove as being occupied by Coastal MoonahWoodland – refer to Map 11. A new Schedule 3is proposed (ESO3) as attached at Appendix 7.The Schedule would be specific to these areas,specifying the statement of environmentalsignificance and environmental objective to beachieved.

The ESO contains permit requirements for allbuildings and works as well as most nativevegetation removal. Whilst the SLO would haveindirect biodiversity benefits, its principal aim isthe maintenance of aesthetic landscape values. Application of the ESO in addition to the SLO isconsidered necessary in order to acknowledge the listing of Coastal Moonah Woodland under theFlora and Fauna Guaranatee Act 1988 as a ‘threatened community’.

The proposed ESO3 will:

• Require a permit for all buildings and works and vegetation removal, with emphasis on retentionand protection of Coastal Moonah Woodland species.

• Discourage subdivision and limit siting of building footprints to avoid areas of Moonah vegetation.

Restructure Overlay (RO)

The purposes of the RO are to:� “Implement the SPPF and LPPF of the planning scheme;� Identify old and inappropriate subdivisions which are to be restructured; and� Preserve and enhance the amenity of the area and reduce the environmental impacts of

dwellings and other development”.

It is proposed to apply a Restructure Overlay (RO1) over land in two areas of Pt Roadknight referredto earlier in the report, comprising the following lots:• 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 175, 177, 179 and 187 Great Ocean Road - on both sides of the road

between Third and Fourth Avenue.• 42, 46-48, 50-52, 53, 55, 57, and 61-63 Eighth Avenue – on both sides of the road between

Eleventh Avenue and Melba Parade.

Map 12 indicates the proposed application of theRO1 over these properties. A copy of theoverlay and schedule is attached at Appendix 7.

The lots are approximately 400-500m² in area,are long and narrow (approximately 9m width),and are developed by dwellings which in mostcases are constructed over two or three lots.One recent change to this configuration hasoccurred at 59 Eighth Avenue where two lotswere re-aligned without needing a planningpermit to create battle axe shaped lots of 338m²and 448m². This created a house site behind Example in Eighth Avenue

Coastal Moonah Woodland at south-east end of EighthAvenue in Point Roadknight

LOCAL PROVISIONSURF COAST PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C16

Part of Planning Scheme Map 33

LEGEND

Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 3



ESO3

2

PD

E

CR

D

MURCH

D

MURCH

CR

RD

Anglesea


RD

Anglesea

EVANS

PURNELLPURNELL

EVANSC

AM

ERO

N

CAM

ERO

N

RD

HEDLEY

RD

HEDLEY

PD

E

AVAV

ST

TO

NG

E

ST

TO

NG

E

RiverRiver

0


metres

75 150

ESO3ESO3ESO3ESO3ESO3ESO3ESO3ESO3ESO3



AMENDMENT C16


LEGEND

Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 3



ESO3

3

ME

LB

A

ROAD

AV

PD

E

RO

AD

EIG

HT

H

PDE

AV

PDE

AVAV

AV

ME

LB

A

EIG

HT

H

AVP

DE

AVROAD

RO

AD

AV

TENTH

ELEVENTH

0 50

metres

100



AMENDMENT C16


LEGEND

Restructure Overlay - Schedule 1



RO1

4

TW

ELV

TH

AV

TH

VENTH

AV

SEVENTH

ROAD

AV

SEVENTH

AV

ME

LB

A

ROAD

AV

PD

E

RO

AD

EIG

HT

H

EIG

HT

H

PDE

TH

VENTH

TW

ELV

TH

AV

AV

PDE

AV

ROAD

ROAD

SEVENTH

AV

ROAD

AVAV

NINTH

AV

NINTH

AV

AV

ME

LB

A

EIG

HT

H

EIG

HT

H

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

PD

E

SEVENTH

AV

AV

AV

PD

EP

DE

AVROAD

RO

AD

AV

0 50 100

metres

RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1




RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1

RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1RO1


_________________________________________________________________________________________________34

the original house which is substantially smaller than the 800m² minimum lot size specified for the PtRoadknight area and the prevailing size of allotments in the surrounding area. A further example is at38 Great Ocean Road where a planning application was lodged in 2000 seeking to construct a twostorey house on each of the narrow lots. The development was approved by the Victorian Civil andAdminstrative Tribunal (VCAT), but is not yet constructed.

Application of the RO in this instance would require a planning permit for all subdivision and to extendor construct a dwelling over what are clearly old and inappropriate subdivisions when compared to thesubstantial sized allotments around them, and would ensure that multiple lots currently in singleownership are not individually developed by dwellings or resubdivided to create lots smaller than theminimum lot size specified in the SLO. It would thus ensure that the preferred character elementsidentified in this Study are achieved, and in the case of the lots in Eighth Avenue, give appropriateprotection to the Coastal Moonah Woodland.

Design and Development Overlay (DDO)

There is no overlay over land in the Special Use Zone – Schedule 5 (SUZ5) at ‘Four Kings’ andDiggers Parade at present, with requirements concerning building height and setback contained in thezone schedule. It is recommended that further strategic work be done to develop a DDO which can beapplied to these sites to ensure that specific design objectives are outlined in relation to issues suchas height, setback and landscaping, and that future development of this zone is compatible with thebroader character elements identified by this Study. A DDO is recommended in preference to an SLOon the grounds that land in the SUZ is predominantly cleared of vegetation, and the focus of thecontrol will be on the form of buildings that are constructed.

Similarly, there are no overlays currentlyapplying to the Anglesea Shopping Centre atCamp Road which is zoned Business 1 (B1Z),and whilst the Angelsea Strategy in the MSSrefers to future development being consistentwith the design guidelines contained in theAnglesea Streetscape Project 1996, there is nostatutory link to this Plan. It is thereforerecommended that a Schedule to the DDO beintroduced over the B1Z which is based on thethese guidelines – refer Map 13 and Appendix 7.This exercise is a translation of past strategicwork.

Modifications to the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The following changes would need to be made to the LPPF of the Planning Scheme to reflect thechanges recommended by this Study:

Anglesea Strategy� Update the references to residential character and preferred policy concerning in-fill subdivision

and development.� Reference possible heritage significance of buildings in Precinct 9 fronting Great Ocean Road,

Tonge Street and Harvey Street.� Include a strategy that supports application of a DDO to the SUZ5 and B1Z.� Include a strategy that flags the need for a DDO over land zoned SUZ5.� Incorporate outcomes of the vegetation assessment – see Chapter 5.

Subdivision Policy� Include a new local policy titled ‘Anglesea Residential Subdivision Policy’ that contains

performance criteria relating to subdivision – refer Appendix 7. The policy specifies minimum lotsizes for the two existing precincts - retention of the existing 800m² in Precinct A and an increasefrom 450m² to 550m² in Precinct B (600m² for corner lots).

Anglesea Shopping Centre


AMENDMENT C16


LEGEND

Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 9



DDO9

8

0 50 100

metres

DDO9DDO9DDO9DDO9DDO9DDO9DDO9DDO9DDO9

McDO

UGAL

L

S

T

WALKER ST

DONA

LD

AV

Table 2 Recommended Changes to Planning Controls

Element SLO Permit ‘Trigger’ Proposed Change

Buildings andworks

SLO2 requires permit except where the:

• Lot area is >450m²

• Cut and fill is change of > 2m to natural groundsurface.

• Building relocated from elsewhere.

• Building footprint including decks etc is < 35% of thesite area or 200m² whichever is the lesser.

• Building height is <5m above natural ground leveldirectly below.

There is currently no permit requirement relating to themaximum % of site area taken up by hard surfaces.Clauses 54 and 55 (ResCode) contain a limit of 80%.

• Increase 450m² to 500m

• Reduce from 2m to 1m change in ground level, and trigger permit where worksare within 3m of a native tree.

• Delete

• Replace the reference to 200m² and <35% with 150m².

• Retain current provision.

• Recommend a permit requirement be introduced for buildings and hardsurfaces footprints which exceed 210m².

ESO to be introduced over selected areas of Coastal Moonah Woodland andinclude permit requirement for all buildings and works.

Building Siting –Front Boundary

There are no siting provisions in the SLO. Buildingstherefore are required to comply with the setbackstandards in Clauses 54 and 55.

Under the above clauses, buildings must be setback in linewith adjoining dwellings or 9m which ever is the lesser.

If vacant lot adjoining on one side, then building must besetback level with the dwelling adjoining or 9m whichever isthe lesser.

If adjoining lots are both vacant, lots fronting a Road Zone1 must be setback at least 6m. For other roads, at least4m.

For corner lots, a side street setback must be at least thesetback of an abutting building fronting the side street or2m, whichever is the lesser.

Introduce a permit requirement for buildings where:

• The lot has side abuttal to a street, and the building has a setback of <4m fromthe side street boundary.

• Both adjoining lots are vacant and the building setback from the streetboundary is <9m.

In all other cases, the requirements of Clauses 54 and 55 would apply.


Front Fences SLO2 requires a permit:

• Precinct A – for a fence other than post and wire.

• Precinct B - for any front fence.

• Extend Precinct A provision across all of Anglesea.

Side BoundaryFences

SLO2 requires a permit :

• Precinct A – if >1.5m high or other than post and wireconstruction.

• Precinct B - Permit required if >1.6m high orconstructed of masonry, brick, stone or sheet metal.

• Extend Precinct A controls across all of Anglesea.

Vegetation The SLO2 requires a permit to remove, lop or destroynative vegetation except where the:

• Vegetation is dead.

• Vegetation is less than 2m high and not specified onan approved landscape plan specifying its retention.

• The vegetation is on the building side of a vertical line2m from the outer edge of the roof of an existing orapproved building.

• The vegetation is listed as an environmental weed atClause 22.01.

• Retain permit requirement in SLO, but modify the exemptions to exclude theGrass Tree.

Delete table of environmental weeds, and reference exemption of weed removalfrom permit requirements to weeds listed in the environmental weeds booklet as anincorporated document.

Apply the ESO to selected areas of the Coastal Moonah Woodland, with a permitrequirement for removal of native vegetation.

External coloursand finishes

The SLO2 requires details of colours and finishes to besubmitted for approval in all cases, including when alteringthe colour of an existing building (even if no planningpermit is required).

• Delete, and replace with permit requirement for use of galvanised iron andzincalume as roof materials.


Policy Element Current PolicyProvision

Proposed Change

FencesCDP states it is policy that:

• Height, design & materials of fences shouldcomplement the character of the streetscape andlocality.

• In environmentaly or visually sensitive sensitive areas,or where consistent with the prevailing character of thelocality, fences should be of timber post and wireconstruction.

• The use of brick, stone, masonry or sheet metal as afence material is discouraged.

• The construction of front fences is discouraged, exceptwhere consistent with prevailing character of thestreetscape.

Replace with:

• Side boundary fences other than post and wire may be permitted where:− Fencing is sited behind the front wall of an existing building; and

− It is short sections of fence designed to achieve privacy between propertieswhere there is inadequate existing vegetation; and

− The fencing is at least 25% permeable to reduce the visual impact.

• Solid forms of front fence may be permitted if:− The land fronts a road with a high level of pedestrian traffic; and

− Solid forms of front fence is consistent with the prevailing character of thestreet; and

− The fence is at least 25% permeable.


Site Coverage CDP states it is policy that:

• Building and hard surface site coverage shouldrespond to the characteristics and constraints of thesite and locality.

• The achievement of vegetation cover performancemeasures will be a primary consideration indetermining the appropriate site coverage for aparticular property. The following performancemeasures are indicative and should not be interpretedas standards that are applicable in all situations:− The total building site coverage (including the

footprint of all buildings, outbuildings, balconies,service installations such as water tanks and thelike and all other appurtenances that have asurface height greater than 1m above naturalground level) should not exceed 35% of the totalsite area; and

− The total hard surface site coverage (includingbuildings, outbuildings, balconies, swimmingpools, and tennis courts of all surface types)should not exceed 50% of the total site area.

• The site coverage may be increased where all of thefollowing apply:− The land is not in an area where tree canopy or

vegetation cover is a feature of the surroundinglandscape;

− The proposed building will not be visually intrusiveor prominent when viewed from the Great OceanRoad or any other significant public viewing point;

− The land is virtually flat and the increased intensityof buildings will not impact on the character of thelandscape and surrounding area;

− The landscape plan increases vegetation cover orotherwise makes a positive contribution to thevegetation or streetscape character of the locality.

Replace with:

• The total footprint of buildings should not exceed a percentage of the total sitearea according to a sliding scale as follows:− Lots <600m² - 30%

− Lots 600-900m² - 25%

− Lots >900m² - 20%

• The footprint of all hard surfaces should not exceed a percentage of the totalsite area according to a sliding scale as follows:− Lots <600m² - 40%

− Lots 600-900m² - 35%

− Lots >900m² - 30%

The decision guidelines should state that:• The site coverage of buildings and/or hard surfaces should be less than stated

above if required to ensure that the landscape objectives of the SLO are met.• Establishment of car parking areas within the street setback area is

discouraged.• Sufficient permeable open space around buildings to enable the viable

preservation of existing trees and the establishment of replacement trees thatscreens buildings from the street and adjoining properties should be provided.

• Adverse environmental impacts on adjoining Crown land or nature reservesshould be avoided.

The ESO should include a decision guideline that the footprint of both buildings andhard surface areas be limited to the minimum necessary to avoid impacts on theMoonah vegetation.


Plot ratio -Building bulk

CDP states it is policy that:

• The gross floor area of all buildings (includingoutbuildings, externally roofed areas and elevatedstructures such as swimming pools and tennis courtsthat have a surface height greater than 1m abovenatural ground level) should not exceed a plot ratio of0.5.

• The plot ratio may be increased where all of thefollowing apply:− The land is not in an area where tree canopy or

vegetation cover is a feature of the surroundinglandscape;

− The proposed building will not be visually intrusiveor prominent when viewed from the Great OceanRoad or any other significant public viewing point;

− The land is virtually flat and the increased intensityof buildings will not impact on the character of thelandscape and surrounding area;

− The landscape plan increases vegetation cover orotherwise makes a positive contribution to thevegetation or streetscape character of the locality.

Replace with:

• The gross floor area of all buildings (including outbuildings and elevatedstructures such as swimming pools and tennis courts that have a surface heightgreater than 1m above natural ground level) should not exceed a plot ratioaccording to a sliding scale as follows:− Lots <600m² - 0.4

− Lots 600-900m² - 0.35

− Lots >900m² - 0.3

The decision guidelines should state that:

• The plot ratio should be less than stated above if required to ensure that thelandscape objectives of the SLO are met.

Building Siting CDP states it is policy that:

• Where practical alternative locations exist, buildingsshould not be located:− On or near ridgelines where the building would

form a silhouette against the sky when viewedfrom the Great Ocean Road or any othersignificant viewing point;

− In locations susceptible to erosion or inundation.

In addition to current policy, the following should be added:

• Siting of a building should take into account the following:− Maximise retention of mature (>10 years old) native vegetation on the site,

with a preference for retention of indigenous vegetation.

− Consider viewlines of adjoining or nearby dwellings.

− Be consistent with the prevailing front setback of other buildings in thestreet.

− Allow a setback from a side street boundary which is sufficient to avoid thebuilding being intrusive to the streetscape of the side street.

− Allow a setback from side boundaries sufficient to create a sense of spacebetween buildings and provide for retention of vegetation and/or planting ofnew vegetation between buildings. Narrow setbacks around buildingsshould be avoided.


Building Height CDP states it is policy that:

• The height of buildings be determined by thesurrounding context, taking into account the followingprinciples:− Buildings should not protrude above the tree

canopy in areas where the canopy is a key featureof the area;

− Buildings should not protrude above ridge lines toform a silhouette against the sky when viewedfrom the Great Ocean Road or any significantpublic viewing point;

− Building heights should not cause a building to bevisually prominent in the context of thesurrounding streetscape or coastal viewshedwhen viewed from the Great Ocean Road or anysignificant public viewing point;

− Building heights should be consistent with thesurrounding streetscape character where thecharacter is itself consistent with the aboveprinciples.

• Buildings should not exceed a maximum height of 7.5metres above natural ground level, although a lesseror greater height will be considered based on anassessment against the principles outlined above.

• A building height exceeding 7.5 metres may only bepermitted where a proposal is consistent with all of theabove principles and betters one or more of theperformance standards outlined elsewhere in thispolicy.

• Retain a maximum building height of 7.5m, but state that a lower height than7.5m may be required if the landscape character objectives of the schedule arenot achieved.


Vegetation The CDP encourages planting of indigenous plants withnew development, and contains a range of policyobjectives. A Vegetation Character description refers tothe Moonah in Point Roadknight.

Recommend that the current vegetation policy references be streamlined to reflectthe outcomes of the Vegetation Assessment, and that key character elementsarising from the Study be incorporated as objectives in the SLO including:• The contribution of both indigenous and native vegetation to the low density

non-urban character of Anglesea, particularly in screening buildings and liningroadsides.

• Importance of vegetation cover to the the broader landscape as viewed frompublic vantage points as well as from private land.

• Importance of increasing vegetation cover in areas of low cover.• Preference to retain indigenous vegetation species in new development, and

encourage planting of new indigenous species rather than exotic species andenvironmental weeds.

• Consideration of the impact of new development on private land on theenvironmental value of adjoining nature reserves.

• Objective of ‘net gain’, with a ratio of five trees planted for each tree removedintroduced. Landscape plans to be submitted with all applications.

• Vegetation objectives are a higher order priority above other objectives in thescheme.

The ESO should contain decision guidelines specifically relating to the protectionand enhancement of the Moonah Woodland vegetation.

DevelopmentDensity

The CDP states:

• Subdivision and development of land should complywith the indicative densities specified in Table 1(Minimum 800m² for Precinct A and Minimum 450m²for Precinct B), unless, in the circumstances outlinedbelow, a moderate variation is justified asdemonstrated through the site analysis and designresponse.

• A lower density than the indicative density specified inTable 1 may be required where any of the followingapply:− The land contains a significant cover of native

vegetation (including understorey), particularlyvegetation that is environmentally significant orwhich forms part of a tree canopy that is an

Create new ‘Anglesea Residential Subdivision Policy’ to state that:

• Lots created by subdivision should not have an area less than:− 800m² in Precinct A.

− 550m² in Precinct B, except for corner sites where the minimum areashould be 600m².

Areas which are to be used for vehicular access via a battle-axe drivewayshould not be counted as lot area for the purpose of these calculations, andlot areas shall not be averaged.

• Lots created by subdivision that contain an existing dwelling should be of a sizeand configuration that the area of buildings and hard surfaces within that lotmeet the relevant performance criteria in Schedule 3 to the SignificantLandscape Overlay.

Table 2 Recommended Changes to Planning Controlsimportant component of the town or streetscapecharacter;

− The land is in a prominent location or on aridgeline visible from the Great Ocean Road orother significant public viewing points;

− The land is steep;

− The size and shape of the existing lot(s), the sitingof existing buildings and works, or the extent ofexisting vegetation, will compromise the versatilityor energy efficiency of any new lots;

− The proposed subdivision or development doesnot achieve compliance with one or more of theperformance measures of this policy.

• A higher density than the indicative density specified inTable 1 may be permitted where all of the followingapply:− The land contains little or no native vegetation or

trees with spreading crowns or the proposal willnot result in a significant loss of native vegetation;

− The proposal includes a landscape plan that willincrease vegetation cover in a manner consistentthe landscape character of the township;

− The land is not, and any proposed developmentwill not be, visually prominent when viewed fromthe Great Ocean Road or any other significantpublic viewing point;

− The gradient is flat or gentle, with no portion of thesite exceeding a 10% slope;

− The configuration and characteristics of theexisting lot(s) will accommodate new lots that areversatile and energy efficient;

− The proposed subdivision or development betterone or more of the performance measures of thispolicy.

• Notwithstanding compliance with the above minimum lot sizes, subdivisionsand associated infrastructure works should be designed to:− Minimise the removal of native vegetation , whether for works associated

with the subdivision and access to a lot, or for the siting of a future dwellingand access within a lot created by the subdivision. Particular emphasisshould be given to the retention of indigenous species including MessmateStringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis),Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus ovata), Narrow-leaf Peppermint (Eucalyptusradiata) and ‘Coastal Moonah Woodland’ species.

− Avoid earthworks or other disturbance adjacent to the root zone of nativevegetation.

− Place reticulated services in common trenches, using internal roads wherepossible, in order to maximise opportunities for future planting of vegetationwithin the subdivision.

− Avoid the location of future dwellings where they would be prominent in thelandscape when viewed from the Great Ocean Road or any othersignificant viewing point.

• Subdivisions should utilise a common access to the street unless it can bedemonstrated that the proposed access does not adversely affect nativevegetaion in the roadside.

• Roads, accessways and/or footpaths within a subdivision should be designed tohave an informal appearance.

• Subdivision of land will not be supported where the land abuts public landwhich contains high environmental values.

• Subdivision plans may incorporate building envelopes or restrictions designedto achieve a reasonable sharing of views between properties.

Replace references in the CDP to multi-dwellings with criteria in the overlay whichstates that:

• A minimum ‘site area’ per dwelling should be provided as follows:− 800m² in Precinct A.

− 550m² in Precinct B, except for corner sites where the minimum ‘site area’should be 600m².

Land common to more than one dwelling (ie providing vehicular access forexample) or battle axe driveways should be excluded from the calculation

Table 2 Recommended Changes to Planning Controlsof ‘site area’, and ‘site areas’ shall not be averaged.

The minimum site ‘site area’ for multi-dwellings may be reduced to 400m² ifit is demonstrated that:

− The land is within a small area in central Anglesea adjoining shopsand community facilities (refer map); and

− The total floor area of each dwelling including all ancillary structures,a covered car space and capacity for external storage does notexceed 120m², with a maximum ground level footprint of 100m²; and

− A Section 173 agreement is entered into as a condition of approval,to the effect that the buildings will not be extended in the future toexceed the approved floor area; and

− The siting and design of the buildings provides for establishment of atleast 8 trees indigenous to the area throughout the developmentwhere the site has a low vegetation cover, so as to substantiallyenhance the canopy cover; and

− Other criteria in the schedule are met and the development meets thelandscape character objectives.

• Greater ‘site areas’ as specified above may be required to ensure anapplication is consistent with the landscape objectives of the overlay

• Multi-dwelling development on sites containing ‘Coastal Moonah Woodland’vegetation or which are adjacent to Crown land or nature reserves isdiscouraged in order to protect the environmental values of that land.

• Multi-dwelling developments should utilise a common access to the streetunless it can be demonstrated that the proposed access is consistent with thelandscape objectives of the schedule.


External coloursand finishes

The Surf Coast Design and Colours Policy states that:

• Colours and materials should reflect the landscapeand architectural features which contribute to theamenity of the streetscape or surrounding area andthe distinctive character and identity of the locality.

• A schedule of external materials and colours will beassessed generally in terms of the surrounding contextas outlined above, also taking into account thefollowing factors:− The streetscape character of the surrounding area

(eg. prominent architectural style, colour/tone andage of neighbouring buildings);

− Visibility of the building or works from beyond thesite, and particularly from the Great Ocean Roador other significant public viewing points;

− Whether surrounding properties enjoy viewsacross the subject site in which case a subduedroof colour would be required.

Replace with:� The use of strong, bold or garish colours should be avoided on the external

walls of buildings.

� Roof colours must be within the range identified in the Subdued Colours Policy1996 so as to blend with the natural environment and minimise the visualimpact and glare of the roof when viewed from beyond the site.

� A range of external colour schemes should be used in multi-dwellingdevelopments to provide diversity within the site.

Tennis Courts The CDP lists the following criteria where tennis courtsmay be supported:

• Tennis courts should not dominate a streetscape,should be proportional to the site and be wellscreened.

• Applications for tennis courts will not be supported onheavily vegetated or steeply sloping sites or whereassociated vegetation removal will cause the tenniscourt or surrounding buildings to become visuallyprominent when viewed from the Great Ocean Road orfrom other significant public viewing points.

• Tennis courts of all surface types (whether grass orartificial, permeable or non-permeable) be defined as ahard surface area for the purposes of this policy.

• Replace section completely, and insert provision that discourages tennis courts.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________35

8. Other Issues

Review of Outcomes

It is recommended that a review of the effectiveness of revised planning controls introduced as anoutcome of the Study be conducted after five years of operation. In this way there can be monitoringof whether preferred character outcomes specified in the Scheme are being met in new development.

A preferred method of review would be to consult the community about developments approved andconstructed within the review time frame which are considered to be favourable to or detracting fromthe character of the town. The process should be based in principle on the process used by Dr. Greenin the current Study, with particular attention given to review of specific developments mentioned mostfrequently. This information can be the basis for a review of the development controls.

Consistency of Plans

Plans submitted with planning applications appear in some cases to include innaccurate assessmentsof building and hard surface site coverage and plot ratio. A way of improving the quality of informationis to require a statement to be submitted with an application that defines how the calculations aremade. By completing the declaration when lodging an application, the onus will be more squarelyplaced on an applicant to make accurate statements concerning compliance with planning schemecontrols.

Enforcement

Respondants to the questionairre and members of the Community Reference Group (CRG) expressedconcern that inadequate enforcement of planning scheme provisions in the past has resulted in highlevels of non-compliance, particularly in relation to retention and planting of vegetation required bypermit conditions. Emphasis should be given to proactive enforcement, and education of thecommunity in relation to planning controls that are in place, or changes that are proposed in the future.

Power Lines

Dr. Green identifies that above ground power lines are a feature which is considered to detract fromthe compatibility of residential development with the local character. Although power lines in newsubdivisions are required to be underground, Council may give consideration to pursuing theundergrounding of powerlines that are prominent in highly valued landscapes.

Landscape Assessment

Officers rarely have formal horticultural experience, making it difficult to assess the appropriatenessand workability of landscape plans submitted for larger scales of development. Whilst the newIndigenous Planting Guide will be of assistance for selecting local species, it is recommended thatCouncil allocate some funds each year for officers to engage a professional to assist in landscapeassessment for larger developments where the effectiveness of landscaping as part of a developmentis more critical. Permit applicants should also be required to engage suitably qualified professionals toassist with landscape plan preparation.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________36

9. Recommendations

The following are recommended actions for the Council to actively consider as a response to theissues raised by this report:

1. Amend the Surf Coast Planning Scheme to:

a) Include the Anglesea Neighbourhood Character Study report and Indigenous PlantingGuide as reference documents in the Planning Scheme.

b) Apply a Restructure Overlay (RO1) to properties at 175-179, 187 and 32-40 GreatOcean Road, and 53-57, 61-63, 42 and 46-52 Eighth Avenue, Anglesea – refer Map12 and Appendix 7.

c) Replace the existing Schedule 2 to the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO2) with anew Schedule 3 (refer Map 10 and Appendix 7) to apply across the Residential 1Zone.

d) Apply an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) over parts of land shown onMaps 6 and 7 in the report as containing stands of Coastal Moonah vegetation (referMap 11 and Appendix 7).

e) Introduce a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) over land zoned B1Z based onthe urban design guidelines contained in the Anglesea Streetscape Project (1996) –refer Map 13 and Appendix 7.

f) Exempt the Coastal Development Policy from applying to Anglesea, and include anew local policy that applies performance criteria to subdivision in Anglesea.

g) Revise the wording of the Anglesea Strategy in the Municipal Strategic Statement(MSS) to reflect the outcomes of the Study.

h) Rezone land owned by Alcoa north of Fraser Avenue from Residential 1 (R1Z) toEnvironmental Rural (ERZ) with a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1).

i) Rezone Crown land north and east of the Inverlochy Street Industrial 3 Zone fromEnvironmental Rural Zone (ERZ) to part Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ)and part Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ).

2. In relation to the land zoned IN3Z east of Inverlochy Street, undertake a further investigationof the social, economic and environmental implications of rezoning the land to PublicResource and Conservation Zone (PRCZ).

3. Request the State Government to modify the Significant Landscape Overlay in the VictorianPlanning Provisions to include a permit requirement for subdivision.

4. Undertake further strategic work to introduce a Design and Development Overlay (DDO) overland zoned SUZ5.

5. Allocate additional resources to enable proactive monitoring of new developments to ensurethat conditions of planning permits relating to vegetation retention and planting of newvegetation is adhered to.

6. Introduce a statement for permit applicants to complete when lodging planning applications tothe effect that information submitted in relation to site coverage and plot ratio is accurate, andassessed according to defined criteria.

7. Develop a policy relating to construction and sealing of roads and construction of footpathswhich gives consideration to techniques that give the appearance of an informal streetscape.

8. Engage a suitably qualified person on a casual basis to assist officers in the assessment oflandscape plans.

9. Implement a street planting scheme in areas of Anglesea that currently have a low nativevegetation cover.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________37

10. Consider adopting a local law as a legal mechanisim to prevent planting of environmentalweeds.

11. Give priority to conducting Stage 2 research on the potential heritage significance of the areaadjacent to Four Kings.

12. Review the effectiveness of any modified planning controls introduced as an outcome of theStudy after five years of operation.

13. Give priority to education of land owners in relation to preferred neighbourhood character andvegetation management outcomes, including:

• New resident information kit which includes the Shire’s Environmental Weeds booklet,Indigenous Planting Guide and Surf Coast Style Guide.

• More comprehensive and informative website, with links to the above information.

• Regular community forums to raise awareness on various issues.

• Communication through existing networks such as Angair, Anglesea NEIP and theCommunity House.

anglesea neighbourhood character study · 2018. 1. 31. · neighbourhood character study provides...

Documents